{"id":262,"date":"2006-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-01T08:59:50","modified_gmt":"2016-08-01T03:29:50","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1334 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Madhya Pradesh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKedar Yadav\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.  By the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment learned Single Judge while upholding the<br \/>\nconviction of the respondent for an offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;)<br \/>\nreduced the sentence to the period already undergone which<br \/>\nwas about 1 year and three months.  The trial court had found<br \/>\nthe respondent guilty and had imposed sentence of ten years<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000\/- with default<br \/>\nstipulation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBackground facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent allegedly assaulted the complainant-<br \/>\nParvat Singh by an axe causing several grievous injuries.<br \/>\nComplainant Parvat Singh (PW 10) lodged a report at the<br \/>\npolice station to the effect that while he was doing night duty<br \/>\nat Dr. Ajay Lal Christian Hospital, the accused hit him on his<br \/>\nhead by the sharp edge of an axe and other parts of the body.<br \/>\nOther persons were present there, who witnessed the incident.<br \/>\nThey carried the complainant to the hospital for treatment.<br \/>\nInformation was lodged at the Police Station and investigation<br \/>\nwas undertaken.  The informant was treated at the hospital for<br \/>\nmultiple injuries sustained by him. After completion of<br \/>\ninvestigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was taken<br \/>\nup for trial.  Accused took the plea of false implication.<br \/>\nAccording to the medical report and the statement of the<br \/>\ndoctor, there was a cut wound on the upper part of partial<br \/>\nbone which was straight cut and there was a parallel straight<br \/>\ncut below said injury and there was a cross cut wound on the<br \/>\nleft acromiyo caviculas wound and the doctor had advised to<br \/>\nget x-ray of head, chest and left shoulder.  According to<br \/>\nstatement of witnesses and doctors and medical report on the<br \/>\nday of incident there were injuries on the body of complainant<br \/>\ncaused by sharp edged weapon.  Therefore, there was no<br \/>\ndispute as to presence of injuries on the body of the<br \/>\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPlacing reliance on the evidence of the victim and others,<br \/>\nthe trial court found the accused guilty and convicted him and<br \/>\nimposed sentence as afore-noted.  The trial court took note of<br \/>\nthe evidence of the Doctor who had first examined the<br \/>\ninformant. The trial court noted that in the opinion of the<br \/>\ndoctor all the injuries were caused by sharp axe or another<br \/>\nsharp-edged weapon and was enough to cause death of the<br \/>\nvictim.  The doctor had advised to get X-ray of head, chest and<br \/>\nleft shoulder of the victim.  Several fractures were also noticed.<br \/>\nTaking note of the serious nature of the injuries inflicted and<br \/>\nthe weapon used, the trial court held the accused-respondent<br \/>\nguilty and imposed sentence as afore-noted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.<br \/>\nLearned counsel appearing before the High Court for the<br \/>\naccused-respondent did not question the finding of conviction.<br \/>\nThe only prayer related to sentence. The High Court without<br \/>\nany discussion merely observed that the accused had<br \/>\nundergone sentence of about one year and 3= months, at the<br \/>\ncommission of offence was aged about 20 years and an<br \/>\nuneducated labourer coming from rural area.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\nperiod of sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period<br \/>\nalready undergone.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that<br \/>\nthe sentence imposed by the High Court is very much on the<br \/>\nlenient side.  In a case of this nature no leniency should have<br \/>\nbeen shown.\n<\/p>\n<p> A bare perusal of the doctor&#8217;s evidence shows that the<br \/>\naccused in a merciless and cruel manner attacked the victim<br \/>\non his head and shoulder causing grievous injuries. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe reduction of sentence was uncalled for.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmitted that though confession appears to have been made<br \/>\nbefore the High Court about conviction that was really not<br \/>\ncalled for.  In any event, the occurrence took place nearly two<br \/>\ndecades back.  Even if prosecution version is accepted in its<br \/>\ntotality, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not<br \/>\nmade out and at the most it is one under Section 324 IPC.<br \/>\nReferring to a judgment of this Court in Kundan Singh v. State<br \/>\nof Punjab (1982 (3) SCC 213) it is submitted that the High<br \/>\nCourt has rightly reduced the period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>Though it is not necessary to examine whether Section<br \/>\n307 IPC had any application, in view of the stand of the<br \/>\nrespondent that in reality that Section 307 IPC had no<br \/>\napplication, we have considered that plea.\n<\/p>\n<p>Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would<br \/>\ndo more harm to the justice system to undermine the public<br \/>\nconfidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long<br \/>\nendure under such serious threats.  It is, therefore, the duty<br \/>\nof every court to award proper sentence having regard to the<br \/>\nnature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed<br \/>\nor committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by<br \/>\nthis Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Naidu (AIR<br \/>\n1991 SC 1463).\n<\/p>\n<p>After giving due consideration to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate<br \/>\nsentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and<br \/>\nmitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has<br \/>\nbeen committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of<br \/>\nreally relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by<br \/>\nthe Court.  Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.  It<br \/>\nhas been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha<br \/>\nv. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711  that no<br \/>\nformula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a<br \/>\nreasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate<br \/>\npunishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may<br \/>\naffect the gravity of the crime.  In the absence of any foolproof<br \/>\nformula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to<br \/>\ncorrectly assess various circumstances germane to the<br \/>\nconsideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in<br \/>\nthe facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment<br \/>\nmay be equitably distinguished.\n<\/p>\n<p>The object should be to protect the society and to deter<br \/>\nthe criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing<br \/>\nappropriate sentence.  It is expected that the Courts would<br \/>\noperate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence<br \/>\nwhich reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing<br \/>\nprocess has to be stern where it should be.\n<\/p>\n<p>Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on<br \/>\nthe social order in many cases may be in reality a futile<br \/>\nexercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to<br \/>\noffences against women, dacoity, kidnapping,<br \/>\nmisappropriation of public money, treason and other offences<br \/>\ninvolving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have<br \/>\ngreat impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be<br \/>\nlost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any<br \/>\nliberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too<br \/>\nsympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect<br \/>\nof such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the<br \/>\nlong run and against societal interest which needs to be cared<br \/>\nfor and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the<br \/>\nsentencing system.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate<br \/>\npunishment is not awarded for a crime which has been<br \/>\ncommitted not only against the individual victim but also<br \/>\nagainst the society to which the criminal and victim belong.<br \/>\nThe punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be<br \/>\nirrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the<br \/>\natrocity and brutality with which the crime has been<br \/>\nperpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public<br \/>\nabhorrence and it should &#8220;respond to the society&#8217;s cry for<br \/>\njustice against the criminal&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is to be noted that the alleged offence was of very<br \/>\nserious nature.  Section 307 relates to attempt to murder.  It<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whoever does any act with such<br \/>\nintention or knowledge, and under such<br \/>\ncircumstances that, if he by that act caused<br \/>\ndeath, he would be guilty of murder, shall be<br \/>\npunished with imprisonment of either<br \/>\ndescription for a term which may extend to<br \/>\nten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and,<br \/>\nif hurt is caused to any person by such act,<br \/>\nthe offender shall be liable either to<br \/>\n(imprisonment for life), or to such punishment<br \/>\nas is hereinbefore mentioned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>To justify a conviction under this Section, it is not<br \/>\nessential that bodily injury capable of causing death should<br \/>\nhave been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually<br \/>\ncaused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a<br \/>\nfinding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may<br \/>\nalso be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in<br \/>\nsome cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to<br \/>\nactual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between an<br \/>\nact of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not<br \/>\nbe attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is<br \/>\nconcerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit<br \/>\nwould be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the<br \/>\ninjury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be<br \/>\nsufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of<br \/>\nthe person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether<br \/>\nthe act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention<br \/>\nor knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the<br \/>\nSection. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the<br \/>\npenultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an<br \/>\nintent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if<br \/>\nthere is present an intent coupled with some overt act in<br \/>\nexecution thereof.  It is not essential that bodily injury capable<br \/>\nof causing death should have been inflicted. The Section<br \/>\nmakes a distinction between the act of the accused and its<br \/>\nresult, if any.  The Court has to see whether the act,<br \/>\nirrespective of its result, was done with the intention or<br \/>\nknowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section.<br \/>\nTherefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot<br \/>\nbe acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim<br \/>\nwere in the nature of a simple hurt.\n<\/p>\n<p>This position was highlighted in <a href=\"\/doc\/384160\/\">State of Maharashtra v.<br \/>\nBalram Bama Patil and Ors.<\/a> (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker<br \/>\nv. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793) and R. Parkash v.<br \/>\nState of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1308077\/\">In Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 843) it<br \/>\nwas observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually<br \/>\ninflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the<br \/>\nvictim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the<br \/>\npurview of Section 307.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that<br \/>\ndeath will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on<br \/>\nthe facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury<br \/>\ninflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself<br \/>\nrule out application of Section 307 IPC.  The determinative<br \/>\nquestion is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and<br \/>\nnot nature of the injury.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 307 deals with two situations so far as the<br \/>\nsentence is concerned.  Firstly, whoever does any act with<br \/>\nsuch intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances<br \/>\nthat, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of<br \/>\nmurder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either<br \/>\ndescription for a term which may extend to ten years, and<br \/>\nshall also be liable to fine; and secondly if hurt is caused to<br \/>\nany person by such act the offender shall be liable either to<br \/>\nimprisonment for life or to such punishment as indicated in<br \/>\nthe first part i.e. 10 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>The nature of the injuries sustained, the weapon used<br \/>\nand the opinion of the doctors as noted above to the effect that<br \/>\nthe injuries were enough to cause death, the trial court had<br \/>\nrightly convicted the accused-respondent for offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 307 IPC. The decision In Kundan<br \/>\nSingh&#8217;s Case (supra) has no application to the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case.  The decision was rendered in the background of<br \/>\nthe factual position as noticed in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering the principles indicated above, the inevitable<br \/>\nconclusion is that the High Court was not justified in reducing<br \/>\nthe sentence to the period already undergone. Taking into<br \/>\naccount all relevant aspects including long passage of time<br \/>\nwhich per se is not a ground for reduction in sentence,  order<br \/>\nof the High Court, so far as it relates to the reduction of period<br \/>\nof sentence, is set aside.  The respondent shall undergo<br \/>\ncustodial sentence for three years subject to such remissions<br \/>\nas may be available in law. Additionally, he shall pay a fine of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/-. Deposit of the amount shall be made within<br \/>\nthree months from today.  If the amount is not deposited the<br \/>\ndefault sentence will be one year rigorous imprisonment.  In<br \/>\ncase the amount is deposited, a sum of Rs.8,000\/- shall be<br \/>\npaid to the victim-Parvat Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1334 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT: Kedar Yadav DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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-262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2206,\"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\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006"},"wordCount":2206,"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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T03:29:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-kedar-yadav-on-30-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kedar Yadav on 30 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/262","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=262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}