{"id":260871,"date":"1998-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998"},"modified":"2017-10-20T00:24:48","modified_gmt":"2017-10-19T18:54:48","slug":"the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Nanavati.<\/div>\n
Bench: G.T. Nanavati, V.N. Khare<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM PADARATH SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/07\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nG.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nNANAVATI. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Both these\t appeals are  filed by\tthe State  of  Bihar
\nagainst the common judgment of the Patna High Court in death
\nReference No.7\tof 1987 and Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1987.
\nThe High  Court rejected  the reference,  allowed the appeal
\nfiled by the convicted accused and acquitted them.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution case as that on 29.1.86, subhash Kunwar
\n(informant) and his brother Rambilas @ Boudhu (deceased) and
\nMangal (deceased) left village Basudevpur in the morning for
\ngoing to  Begusarai. At\t about 9’O  clock,  when  they\twere
\npassing by  the ‘bandh’\t (embankment) near  village Koria  –
\nHaibatpur, accused  Ram Padarath,  Ram Susgarath, Ramsubodh,
\nBipin, Dilip  (absconding) who\twere armed  with pistols and
\n‘Katta’ attacked  them, because\t of the previous enmity with
\nthe informant  and his\tbrother. Boudhu\t and Mangal who were
\nwalking ahead  of subhash  became their\t Targets.  The\tshot
\nfired by  Ram Padarath\t(Respondent  No.1)  injured  Boudhu.
\nAfter walking  a few  steps he\tfell down  in a nearby field
\nwhere he  was given a blow by Ram Sugarath with a ‘katta’ on
\nhis head.  He  died  immediately.  Mangal  who\thad  started
\nrunning away  from that\t place shouting\t ‘Bachao Bachao’ was
\nhit by\ta shot\tfired by Dilip. After covering some distance
\nhe fell\t down and  at that time ram subodh (Respondent No.2)
\nVipin and  Ram Sugarath attacked him by giving ‘katta’ blows
\nand killed  him. Subhash  who was  walking  behind  his\t two
\nbrothers was  able to  run away\t from that  place before  he
\ncould be  attacked. He\tstraight went  to  Begusarai,  after
\ncatching a  bus on  the way,  got a complaint written by his
\nbrother-in-law who  was an  advocate  and  presented  it  at
\nBegusarai police  Station. On the basis of this complaint an
\noffence was  registered against all the five accused for the
\noffences punishable  under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a> and 302<\/a>\/149<\/a> IPC
\nand  against   Ram  Padarath   and  Dilip  for\tthe  offence
\npunishable under Section 27<\/a> of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
     As accused Dilip and Ramsugarath were found absconding,
\nthe trial proceeded against the remaining three accused. The
\nprosecution examined  subhash (PW 7) Navia Rai (PW 1), vijay
\nKumar (PW  2), Biso  Kumar (PW\t8) and Lal Kunwar (PW 11) as
\neye-witnesses. The  trial court\t believed their\t presence at
\nthe time  and place  of the  incident. It  held\t that  their
\nevidence did not Suffer from any infirmity and was truthful.
\nOn the\tbasis of  their evidence the three accused were held
\nguilty for  the murders\t of  Boudhu  and  Mangal.  All\twere
\nconvicted under\t Section 148<\/a>  IPC. Accused  Ram Padarath was
\nconvicted under\t Section 302<\/a>  for the  murder of  Boudhu and
\nunder Section  302<\/a> read\t with Section  34<\/a>\/149<\/a>  IPC  for\t the
\nmurder of  Mangal. He was also convicted under Section 27<\/a> of
\nthe Arms Act. The remaining two were convicted under Section
\n302<\/a> read  with Section\t34<\/a>\/149<\/a> IPC for the murders of Boudhu
\nand Mangal.  For causing  death of Mangal all the three were
\nsentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and for the murder
\nof Boudhu  accused Ram\tPadarath was  sentenced to death and
\nthe other  two were  sentenced to  suffer  imprisonment\t for
\nlife.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by  their conviction and the sentence imposed
\nupon them they filed an appeal before the High Court. As Ram
\nPadarath,  (Respondent\tNo.1)  was  sentenced  to  death,  a
\nreference was also made to the High Court for confirming his
\ndeath sentence.\t The  High  Court  held\t that  all  the\t eye
\nwitnesses stood\t contradicted by  the  medical\tevidence  as
\nregards the injury caused to Boudhu with a ‘katta’, inasmuch
\nas they\t had deposed  that accused  Ram Sugarath had given a
\nblow above  the neck of Boudhu and piece of flesh had bulged
\nout from  that wound  while the medical evidence showed that
\nthe injury  caused by  a sharp\tcutting weapon\twas  on\t the
\nvertex and  not on  the neck of Boudhu and no piece of flesh
\nhad bulged  out from  that wound,  but some  brain substance
\ncould be  seen in  it. The High Court also held that all the
\neye witnesses  had failed to explain the incised wound found
\non the\thead of\t Boudhu and  that created  a  serious  doubt
\nregarding their\t claim\tto  have  seen\tthe  incident.\tWith
\nrespect to  the injury\tfound on the thigh of Mangal the eye
\nwitnesses had  stated that  it was caused by a shot fired by
\nDilip when  he was  running away  from that  place. The High
\nCourt held  that the eye witnesses stood contradicted by the
\nmedical evidence  as the entry wound in that case would have
\nbeen on the back side of the thigh of Mangal whereas in fact
\nit  was\t in  the  front.  The  High  Court  disbelieved\t the
\nexplanation given  by the  eye witnesses that Mangal was hit
\nby the\tshot when  he had  turned back\tfor a  moment  while
\nrunning away,  on the  ground that  it was highly improbable
\nthat Mangal  had the  courage to  turn back and see what was
\nhappening behind hi. The High Court also disbelieved the eye
\nwitnesses on  the ground that their evidence was improbable.
\nIt observed  that, if  the three brothers had left together,
\nit was\tnot likely  that Subhash would be walking behind his
\ntwo brothers keeping some distance. It also observed that if
\nsubhash was  with his  brothers than  the accused  would not
\nhave allowed  Subhash to  run  away.  The  High\t Court\talso
\ndisbelieved their evidence on the ground that no independent
\nwitnesses  from\t  the  locality\t  were\t   examined  by\t the
\nprosecution and\t that indicated, that the eye witnesses were
\nselected or got up witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court rejected  the evidence  of PWs. 2,7 and
\n11, also on the ground that they were partisan witnesses. It
\nheld that the evidence on record was sufficient to show that
\nrelations between  them and  the accused  were inimical\t and
\neven criminal  proceedings were\t pending between  them.\t The
\nclaim of  PWs. 1  and 3\t to have  witnessed the incident was
\ndoubted on the ground that their names were not disclosed as
\neye witnesses in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court disbelieved  the  evidence\t PW  7\talso
\nbecause it  found that\twhat he\t had deposed was improbable,
\nhis  conduct   was  unnatural\tand  he\t had  made  material
\nimprovements  while   giving  evidence.\t  Apart\t  from\t the
\nImprobabilities referred to earlier, viz that he was walking
\nbehind his  two brothers  at some distance and that he would
\nnot have  been spared  by the  accused if he was really with
\nhis two\t brothers, the\tother improbabilities  found by\t the
\nHigh Court were:\n<\/p>\n
1)   that subhash  would not have failed to inquire from his
\n     two brothers the reason why he was taken to Begusarai;\n<\/p>\n
2)   if they  were really going to Begusarai then they would
\n     have carried  some money  with them  but no  money\t was
\n     found from the pockets of Boudhu and Mangal; and\n<\/p>\n
3)   the accused  would not  have failed  to prevent Subhash
\n     from runing away by firing a shot at hi. The High Court
\n     found his\tconduct unnatural  because: (1)\t instead  of
\n     rushing back to his village which was nearby, to inform
\n     his relatives  and friends,  he went  to Begusarai\t (2)
\n     even after reaching Begusarai he did not go to Boudhu’s
\n     house to  inform his  widow and  other  family  members
\n     about the\tincident and  (3) instead  of rushing to the
\n     police station,  he went  to his brother-in-law’s house
\n     to get a complaint written by him. The High Court found
\n     that PW 7 had made material improvements as regards the
\n     number of\tshots fired  by the  accused, the  parts  of
\n     bodies of\tBoudhu and  Mangal on  which  injuries\twere
\n     caused by\tthe and\t the weapons  with which the accused
\n     had caused\t those injuries.  The High Court doubted his
\n     evidence and  also the  prosecution case as a whole for
\n     the reason that the complaint which was written down by
\n     the brother-in-law\t of PW\t7  was\tnot  signed  by\t the
\n     brother-in-law, even  though he was present when it was
\n     presented at the police station.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence of Navin Rai (PW 1) was also disbelieved on the
\nground that  if he  had\t  really gone  to  Koria  Chowk\t for
\nsupplying milk\tto Siyaram  Singh then he would have carried
\nthe empty  vessel while\t returning but\tno such\t vessel\t was
\nproduced by  him before\t the police.  The evidence  of Bisho
\nKunwar (PW  8) was disbelieved by the High Court also on the
\nground that  if he had really gone to take medicine from the
\ndoctor at  Koria Haibatpur  then his  name would  have found
\nplace in  the  register\t maintained  by\t the  Doctor  and  a
\nprescription of\t medicine would\t have been  given to him. As
\nthe witness  had not  produced the prescription nor his name
\nappeared in  the register,  it was highly doubtful if he had
\nreally gone to take medicine as stated by him.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel appearing  for the State submitted
\nthat the  High Court  has failed to correctly appreciate the
\nevidence of  the eye  witnesses and  the grounds given by it
\nfor discarding\ttheir  evidence\t are  flimsly.\tThe  learned
\ncounsel took  us through  the  FIR,  evidence  of  the\tfour
\nwitnesses and the medical evidence.  After going through the
\nsame we find that the submission made by the learned counsel
\ndeserves to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     We will  first consider the general reason given by the
\nHigh Court  that all  the eye  witness Stood contradicted by
\nthe medical  evidence. The  eye witnesses had deposed that a
\n‘katta’ blow  was given\t by accused  Ram Sugarath  above the
\nback side  of neck of Boudhu. Dr. Bhagat (PW 4) who had done
\nthe post mortem examination had found three injuries on him.
\nTwo were  bullet wounds\t and 3rd was an incised wound on the
\nvertax. Out  of the  two bullet\t wounds, one  was any  entry
\nwound and  other was  an exit  wound. The bullet had entered
\nfrom the  left temporal\t area and  gone out  from the  right
\noccipital bone\tone inch  behind the right ear. According to
\nthe doctor brain substance could be seen from that wound. As
\nregards the  3rd injury\t the doctor had stated that it could
\nhave been caused by a weapon like ‘katta’. Thus according to
\nthe medical  evidence there  was no  injury on\tthe neck  of
\nBoudhu which  could have  been caused by a katta blow. It is
\ntrue that  no eye  witnesses had  stated that any katta blow
\nwas given  on the  head of  Boudhu. Thus  apparently the eye
\nwitnesses did  stand contradicted by the medical evidence as
\nregards these  two injuries.  But what the High Court failed
\nto appreciate  was that\t all the  eye witnesses had seen the
\nincident from  some distance.  After being  hit by  the shot
\nfired by  Ram Padarath,\t Boudhu had  walked a  few steps and
\nthen the  katta blow was given. Boudhu was surrounded by the
\naccused at  that time. It was under these circumstances that
\nthe eye\t witnesses had committed a mistake in describing the
\npart of\t the head  of Boudhu  on which\tthe katta  blow\t had
\nfallen. It  was an  impression which  they had\tcarried when
\nthey either  saw the blow being given or saw the injuries on
\nBoudhu after  going near the place where he had fallen down.
\nThe wound  which was  found above  the neck  and behind\t the
\nright ear  was 1  inch long  3\/4 inch wide and bone deep. It
\nwas almost  similar in size and shape to the wound which was
\nfound on the vertax. If under these circumstances, labouring
\nunder some  confusion they  stated that\t the katta  blow had
\nfallen on  the neck  of Boudhu, then on the basis of such an
\ninconsistency or  discrepancy it was no proper for the court
\nto raise  a doubt  regarding the  witnesses having  seen the
\nactual assault\ton Boudhu.  The High court also did not read
\nand appreciate\tthe evidences of the eye witnesses correctly
\nwhen it\t stated that according to them some flesh had bulged
\nout of\tthe wound  on  the  neck.  We  find  that  what\t the
\nwitnesses had stated was that the muscle of that part of the
\nneck was cut. What the Doctor had stated with respect to the
\nwound was  that brain  substance could\tbe seen\t inside\t the
\nwound. He  had not  stated that brain substance had come out
\nof it.\tIt is  therefore difficult  to\tappreciate  how\t the
\nevidence of  the eye  witnesses on this point can be said to
\nbe contradictory with the medical evidence. The reasoning of
\nthe High  Court that the eye witnesses had probably not seen
\nthe assault  on Boudhu\tand when  they had subsequently gone
\nnear that  place had  seen the\tthree injuries on Boudhu and
\ntherefore, they were made to say that the injury on the neck
\nwas caused  by a katta blow given by Ram Sugarth thus stands
\nvitiated. If  really the  witnesses had not seen the assault
\nand had given their statement only after seeing the injuries
\non the dead bodies of Boudhu, as observed by the High Court,
\nthen they  would not  have committed such a mistake and they
\nwould have  stated that the katta blow was given on the head
\nand not\t on the\t neck of  Boudhu. The  eye witnesses\thave
\nconsistently stated  that Boudhu was hit twice – once by the
\nshot fired  by Ram Padarath and the second time by the katta
\nblwo given  by Ram  Sugarath, even  though there  were three
\ninjuries on  the head  of Boudhu. If the evidence of the eye
\nwitnesses is  read carefully,  it clearly appears that wheat
\nthey stated  was that  the shot\t fired by  Ram Padarath\t had
\ncaused an  entry wound on the forehead, the ‘katta’ blow and
\ncaused an injury on the neck and the wound on the vertax was
\nthe exit  wound. No doubt, to that extent their evidence can
\nbe said to inconsistent with the medical evidence. But it is
\nnot an inconsistency of that type where one can say that the
\nocular\tevidence  and  the  medical  evidence  cannot  stand
\ntogether  and\twhich  would  justify  raising\tof  a  doubt
\nregarding the  truthfulness  of\t the  evidence\tof  the\t eye
\nwitnesses. The\tinconsistency  clearly\tappears\t to  be\t the
\nresult of  confusion and  does not  indicate an\t attempt  to
\ndescribe the  incident by  a person  who had not really seen
\nit. The\t High Court therefore was not right in rejecting the
\nevidence of  the eye  witnesses as  regards the\t assault  on
\nBoudhu, on these grounds.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court was  also wrong in disbelieving the eye
\nwitnesses, as  regards the  assault on Mangal. The reasoning
\nof the\tHigh Court  was that  if the shot fired by Dilip had
\nhit Mangal  while running  away then in that case the bullet
\ninjury would  have been\t found on the back side of the thigh
\nof Mangal  and not  on its front side, and as the injury was
\nfound on  the front  side that\tindicated that\tthe  version
\ngiven by  eye witnesses was not correct. The High Court also
\nobserved that  it was  not believable  that mangal  had\t the
\ncourage to  turn back and see what the assailants were doing
\nafter they  had killed Boudhu. What the High Court failed to
\nappreciate was\tthat it\t was not  a matter of courage but it
\nwas the\t instinct of  self  preservation  which\t could\thave
\nprompted Mangal\t to look  back, as he was also being chased.
\nHis brother  was chased\t and beaten  by the accused who were
\nsworn enemies.\tIt was\tfor that  reason that he had started
\nrunning away  from that\t place. It  was therefore  not\tonly
\nprobable but  quite natural  for  him  after  covering\tsome
\ndistance to  look back\tto find\t out whether  he  was  being
\nchased or  not. Therefore, the evidence of the eye-witnesses
\nthat  while   running  away  Mangal  was  shouting  ‘Bachao’
\n‘Bachao’ and  the shot\tfired by  dilip had  hit him  on his
\nthigh, when  he had  turned back  for a moment while running
\nwas really  not inconsistent  with the\tmedical evidence and
\ndeserved to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court also  rejected the\t evidence of the eye
\nwitnesses on  the ground  that no independent witnesses from
\nthe nearby  place namely  Koria Haibatpur,  were examined by
\nthe prosecution.  According to\tthe High Court, it created a
\ndoubt regarding\t the eye  witnesses being  genuine and their
\nevidence being truthful. The High Court failed to appreciate
\nthat the  incident had\thappened near  the embankment  at  a
\nlittle distance\t from Koria  Haibatpur\tChowk.\tNothing\t was
\nbrought out  in the  evidence  of  any\tof  the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses, including  the investigating officer, to indicate
\nthat any  other person\twas present  near the  place of\t the
\nincident or  that he  had seen\t the incident. In absence of
\nSuch material on record, the High Court was not justified in
\nassuming and  then proceeding  on the basis that independent
\nwitnesses must\thave been  available and  yet they  were not
\nexamined by  the prosecution.  The prosecution\thad examined
\ntwo persons  Navin Rai\tand Biso  Kunwar who were passing by
\nthe Koria  Haibatpur Chowk,  There is  nothing on  record to
\nshow that they were in any manner connected with subhash and
\nhis brothers  or inimical  to the  accused.  If\t independent
\npersons were  not willing  to tell  the police that they had
\nseen the incident, the prosecution can not be blamed for not
\nexamining independent  persons as eye witnesses and veracity
\nof the\tevidence of  the witnesses examined as eye witnesses
\ncannot be  doubted on  that  ground.  The  High\t Court\twas,
\ntherefore, not justified in disbelieving the evidence of the
\neye witnesses on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court rejected the evidence of PWs 2,7 and 11
\non the\tground\tthat  they  were  partisan  witnesses  being
\ninimical to  the faction of the accused. The evidence of the
\ntwo remaining eye witnesses was discarded on the ground that
\ntheir names were not mentioned in the FIR. We agree with the
\nfinding of  the High Court that relations of PWs. 2,7 and 11
\nwith the  accused were\tinimical and  therefore no  implicit
\nfaith could  be placed\ton their  evidence. But\t it was\t not
\nproper for the High Court to reject the evidence of PW 1 and
\nPW 8  on the  ground that  their names were not mentioned in
\nthe FIR\t as eye\t witnesses. The\t FIR was  lodged by PW 7. As
\nsoon as\t he had\t seen the  assault on  his  brother  he\t had
\nstarted running away from that place to save his life. Under
\nthese circumstances it was too much to expect that he should
\nhave noticed  the presence of these two witnesses and assume
\nthat they  had seen  incident. Though  the fact\t that  their
\nnames did  not appear  as eye-witnesses\t in the\t FIR  was  a
\nrelevant circumstance,\tthe evidence  each of  these two eye
\nwitnesses was required to be appreciated on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart from\t the general  grounds stated above, the High
\nCourt rejected\tthe evidence  of PW  7 on the ground that it
\nwas improbable,\t his conduct  was unnatural  and that he had
\nmade material  improvements while  giving  evidence  in\t the
\nCourt. We  fail to  appreciate how  the circumstance that he
\nwas walking  behind his\t brother at  some  distance  can  be
\nregarded as  improbable\t merely\t because  they\thad  started
\ntogether from  village Basudevpur.  They had covered quite a
\nlong  distance\t by  the  time\tthey  had  reached  Koria  –
\nHaibatpur. Subhash  could have\tremained behind\t for various
\nreasons. It  was not  an improbability and particularly when
\nno explanation was sought from the witnesses in that behalf,
\ncorrectness of\tthe evidence  of PW  7 should  not have been
\ndoubted on  the basis  of this\tcircumstance. The High Court
\nalso found  his evidence improbable on the ground that if he
\nhad really  gone along\twith his  brothers then\t the accused
\nwould not  have spared\thim. If\t subhash  was  at  a  little
\ndistance from  his brothers  when they were attacked then he
\nbeing young  man could\thave run away from that place before
\nhe  could  be  attacked.  What\tthe  High  Court  failed  to
\nappreciate was that he was not spared by the accused but was
\nable to\t run  away  from  that\tplace  before  he  could  be
\nattacked. It  was therefore not proper to doubt the evidence
\nof PW  7 and  other eye\t witnesses on  this ground. PW 7 had
\nreached\t   Begusarai  within  a\t short\ttime  and  lodged  a
\ncomplaint and  that makes  his version\tthat he was with his
\nbrothers when  they were assaulted more probable.  If he had
\ncome to\t know about the incident later, after learning about
\nit from\t somebody, then he would not have been able to lodge
\nthe  complaint\t at  Begusarai\tso  quickly.  Moreover,\t his
\nevidence  that\t they  were   going  together  from  village
\nBasudevpur to  Begusarai, deserved  to be  believed  as\t the
\nincident had  taken place  at Koria  Haibatpur through which
\nthey had  to pass  for going  to Begusarai.  PW 7 and Mangal
\nwere  staying  at  Basudevpur  and  Boudhu  was\t staying  at
\nBegusarai. Unless  Boudhu had earlier came to Basudevpur, as
\nstated by  PW 7,  they could not have been together at Koria
\nHaibatpur. The\tHigh Court  failed to  appreciate that\tthis
\ncircumstance  provided\t independent  corroboration  to\t the
\nevidence of PW 7. Another reason given by the High Court for
\nholding his  evidence improbable is that he had not inquired
\nfrom his  two brothers, the reason why he was being taken to
\nBegusarai. What the High Court failed to appreciate was that
\nhe was\tthe youngest  brother and his eldest brother who had
\ncome from  Begusarai to Basudevpur had told him to accompany
\nhim as\the had\tsome work.  Under the circumstances, his not
\ninquiring about\t the reason  was not  unusual and it was not
\nproper to consider his evidence improbable on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
     The Next  reason why  the\tHigh  Court  Considered\t the
\nevidence of PW 7 improbable was that if they were going from
\nBasudevpur to  Begusarai and  were required to travel by bus
\nthen they would have carried some money with them but at the
\ntime of\t post mortem examination no money was found from the
\npockets of  either Boudhu  or Mangal.  What the\t High  Court
\nmissed to  consider was\t that the incident had happened at 9
\nA.M.  on   29.6.86  and\t the  post  mortem  examination\t was
\nconducted at 9 A.M. on 30.6.86.\t Therefore, the circumstance
\nthat no\t money was found from the pockets of the deceased at
\nthe time  of post  mortem examination  should not  have been
\nutilized by  the High Court to hold that the version of PW 7
\nwas improbable. The very fact that the incident had happened
\nat Koria Haitbatpur and\t not at Basudevpur where Subhash was
\nstaying nor  at Begusarai where Boudhu was staying indicates
\nthat they  were going  from one place to the other. The High
\ncourt also  failed to consider that there was no evidence to
\nshow that  Subhash also\t had no\t money\twith  him  when\t the
\nincident happened.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of PW 7 was considered improbable also on
\nthe ground that the accused would not have failed to prevent
\nsubhash from  running away  by firing  a  shot\tat  him.  As
\nalready stated earlier Subhash was at some distance from his
\ntwo brothers  when the incident had happened and had started
\nrunning away  from the\tplace as  soon as  he had  seen\t the
\nassault on  his brothers.  Subhahsh being  a young man of 28
\nyears of age must have covered quite a long distance by that
\ntime. It  was quite  probable that the accused did not think
\nit fit\tto fire a shot at him. It is difficult to appreciate
\nhow this  part of  the evidence\t of the eye witnesses can be
\nregarded as improbable.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  also not  possible to  agree  with\tany  of\t the
\nreasons given  by the  High Court for holding the conduct of
\nPW 7  unnatural. It si true that he did not rush back to his
\nvillage after  the  incident  to  inform  his  relatives  or
\nfriends.  But  seeing  the  murderous  assault\ton  his\t two
\nbrothers by  their enemies, if PW 7 though it fit to rush to
\nthe police  station,  his  conduct  cannot  be\tregarded  as
\nunnatural. It  is not  unknown that  different persons react
\ndifferently when  placed under\tsuch circumstances.  For the
\nsame reason  his not  going to\tBoudhu’s house to inform his
\nwidow about  the incident  cannot be  regarded as a piece of
\nunnatural conduct. Nor was it proper to consider his conduct
\nunnatural on  the ground  that before  reaching\t the  police
\nstation he  had first gone to his brother-in-law’s house. He
\nwas a villager. he wanted to lodge a complaint. His brother-
\nin-law\twas  an\t advocated.  If\t under\tthese  circumstances
\ninstead of  proceeding straight\t to the\t police\t station  he
\nthough it  fit to  approach his\t brother-in-law\t and  get  a
\ncomplaint written  through him, then that cannot be regarded
\nas unnatural
\n     The High  Court discarded\tthe evidence of PW 7 also on
\nthe ground  that he  had made  material\t improvements  while
\ndeposing before the court as regards the manner in which the
\nincident had  happened. Before\tthe Court  he had stated the
\nnumber of  shots fired\tby the\taccused and the parts of the
\nbodies of Boudhu and Mangal on which injuries were caused by
\nthem. In  the FIR he had not given all these details. But he
\nhad  stated  in\t the  FIR  that\t while\the  was\t going\tfrom
\nBasudevpur to  Begusarai along\twith his  two  brothers\t and
\nwhile  they  were  passing  by\tthe  embankment\t near  Koria
\nHaibatpur, the\taccused had  attacked his  two brothers\t who
\nwere walking  ahead of him. He had also stated that injuries
\nwere caused  to them  by firing\t a shot and by giving ‘katta
\nblows’. Thus  he had  stated the weapons with which injuries
\nwere caused  to\t his  two  brothers.  By  stating  that\t his
\nbrothers were  injured by the accused ‘by firing a short’ he
\ndid not\t mean that  only one  shot  was\t fired,\t as  wrongly
\nunderstood by the High Court. It was not his version that by
\none shot  both his  brothers were  injured.   On seeing\t the
\nassault on  his two  brothers, he  had started\trunning away
\nfrom the place. He might not have seen at that time how many
\n‘katta’ blows  were given by the accused to his two brothers
\nand on\twhich parts of their bodies injuries were caused. If
\nthe High  Court had  considered this aspect then possibly it
\nwould not  have held  that the\twitness\t had  made  material
\nimprovements while  giving evidence  in the  Court. The High
\nCourt disbelieved  his evidence\t also on the ground that his
\nbrother-in-law Radhey  Shyam Singh  who was  an advocate and
\nwho had accompanied him to the police station had not signed
\nthe complaint.\tIt is  difficult to appreciate how on such a
\nground evidence\t of PW\t7 could\t have been disbelieved. PW 7
\nwas the\t complainant and  he had signed the complaint. There
\nwas no reason for his brother-in-law to sign that complaint.
\nit is  also difficult to appreciate how the High Court could
\nregard Radhey  Shyam Singh as a material witness and draw an
\nadverse inference  against the prosecution for not examining
\nhim as\ta witness. Having considered his evidence carefully,
\nwe are\tof the\topinion that  PW 7 was with his two brothers
\nwhen the  incident happened  and that  what he\thad  deposed
\nbefore the  Court with respect to the assault by the accused
\nwas quite  true.   The grounds\tgiven by the High Court, for
\ndisbelieving PW\t 7, except  the\t ground\t that  PW  7  was  a
\npartisan witness, are not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  also of  the view\tthat the  High Court was not
\nright in  discarding the  evidence of eye witness Navin Rai.
\nWhile it is true that his name was not mentioned in the FIR,
\nno importance should have given to that omission, in view of
\nthe circumstances  in which  PW 7  had\tleft  the  place  of
\nincident and lodged the FIR. The High Court was not right in
\nconsidering  his  evidence  inconsistant  with\tthe  medical
\nevidence. Earlier,  we have  pointed  out  how\tthe  medical
\nevidence is  not inconsistent  with the evidence on a flimsy
\nground that he had not produced the empty vessel in which he
\nhad carried  milk for  supplying it  to Ramji  Singh. In the
\ncross examination of witness nothing has been brought out to
\nshow that  there was  any reason  for him to falsely involve
\nthe accused.  He was  neither close  with the  family of the
\ndeceased nor inimical to the accused.  The trail court after
\nclose scrutiny of his evidence had held that his presence at
\nthe place  of incident\twas quite  natural as he had gone to
\nKoria Chowk as usual for giving milk to Ramji singh. For the
\nsame reason,  we hold  that the High Court committed a grave
\nerror in  not accepting\t the evidence  of eye  witness\tBiso
\nKunwar on the grounds that his name did not appear as an eye
\nwitness in  the FIR and that his evidence stood contradicted
\nby the\tmedical evidence.  Like Navin  Rai  he\tas  also  an
\nindependent witness  and his  evidence should  not have been
\ndiscarded on  the ground that his name did not appear in the
\nregister of  the doctor,  to when  he had  gone\t for  taking
\nmedicine and  that he  had  not\t produced  the\tprescription
\nbefore\tthe  police.  He  could\t have  hardly  realised\t the
\nimportance of  producing the  same before the police. It was
\nnot a  case where  he was asked to produce it but had failed
\nto do so.\n<\/p>\n
     On close scrutiny of the evidence and after hearing the
\nsubmissions of\tthe learned  counsel. We  find that the High
\nCourt did  not appreciate  the evidence correctly and failed
\nto take\t into consideration  the reasons  given by the trial
\ncourt for accepting their evidence. The discrepancies in the
\nevidence noticed  by the  High Court  were considered by the
\ntrial court  and good  reasons were  given for accepting the
\nevidence  of   PWs   1,7   and\t 8   notwithstanding   those
\ndiscrepancies. The High Court gave undue importance to those
\ndiscrepancies and without valid reasons doubted the presence
\nof PWs 1,7 and 8 and discarded their evidence. The erroneous
\nappreciation  of   the\tevidence   by  the  High  Court\t and
\nconsequent acquittal  has led to the miscarriage of justice.
\nWe, therefore,\tallow these  appeals, set aside the judgment
\nand order  passed by the High Court and restore the judgment
\nand order  of conviction  passed by the trial court. We also
\nrestore the  order of  sentence passed\tby the\ttrail court,
\nsubject to  this modification that for the murder of Boudhu.
\nAccused Ram  Padarath, for  his consequent  conviction under
\nSection 302<\/a>,  shall suffer  imprisonment for life instead of
\nthe sentence  of death as we are of the opinion that this is
\nnot a  fit case\t in which  death sentence  should have\tbeen
\nimposed upon  Accused  Ram  Padarath.  The  respondents\t are
\ndirected to surrender to custody to serve out remaining part
\nof their sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 Author: Nanavati. Bench: G.T. Nanavati, V.N. Khare PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM PADARATH SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/07\/1998 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-260871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - 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\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-19T18:54:48+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T18:54:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\"},\"wordCount\":5073,\"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\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\",\"name\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T18:54:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - 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\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-19T18:54:48+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998","datePublished":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T18:54:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998"},"wordCount":5073,"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\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998","name":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T18:54:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bihar-vs-ram-padarath-singh-ors-on-21-july-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Bihar vs Ram Padarath Singh & Ors on 21 July, 1998"}]},{"@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\/260871","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=260871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}