{"id":262142,"date":"2006-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-12-18T01:16:34","modified_gmt":"2017-12-17T19:46:34","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  762 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Madhya Pradesh\t \t\t\t\t \n\nRESPONDENT:\nSantosh Kumar\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5967 of 2005)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tA six years old child was subjected to sexual abuse by
\nthe respondent. He faced trial for alleged commission of
\noffences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 342<\/a> of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC<\/a>‘). The trial court
\nfound respondent guilty of the offences for the offence
\npunishable under Section 372(2)(f)<\/a> IPC. respondent was
\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years R.I. with a
\nfine of Rs.500\/- with default stipulation. He was further
\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment of three months for the
\noffence punishable in terms of Section 342<\/a> IPC. Both the
\nsubstantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run
\nconcurrently.  In the appeal filed before the High Court the
\naccused did not question the conviction, but prayed for
\nreduction in sentence.  The High Court reduced the sentence
\nfor the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)<\/a> IPC to 5
\nyears, while maintaining the sentence in respect of other
\noffence. The State of Madhya Pradesh has questioned
\ncorrectness of the judgment on the ground that the reduction
\nin sentence was clearly uncalled for. The only ground
\nindicated by the High Court to reduce the sentence was the
\nyoung age of the accused and he being member of the
\nScheduled Tribe. Learned counsel for the appellant-State
\nsubmitted that the reduction of sentence as done by learned
\nSingle Judge is contrary to  law as laid down by this Court in
\nseveral cases.  While dealing with the offence of rape which
\nwas established, the direction for reduction of sentence should
\nnot have been given on the specious reasonings indicated
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in
\nspite of service of notice.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial question which needs to be decided is the
\nproper sentence and acceptability of reasons which weighed
\nwith learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
The offence of rape occurs in Chapter XVI of IPC<\/a>. It is an
\noffence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a
\nseparate heading for ‘Sexual offence’, which encompasses
\nSections 375<\/a>, 376<\/a>, 376-A<\/a>, 376-B<\/a>, 376-C<\/a>, and 376-D<\/a>. ‘Rape’ is
\ndefined in Section 375<\/a>. Sections 375<\/a> and 376<\/a> have been
\nsubstantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act<\/a>,
\n1983, and several new sections were introduced by the new
\nAct, i.e. 376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376-D.  The fact that
\nsweeping changes were introduced reflects the legislative
\nintent to curb with iron hand, the offence of rape which affects
\nthe dignity of a woman. The offence of rape in its simplest term
\nis ‘the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force,
\nfear or fraud’, or as ‘the carnal knowledge of a woman by force
\nagainst her will’. ‘Rape’ or ‘Raptus’ is when a man hath carnal
\nknowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt.
\n123-b); or as expressed more fully,’ rape is the carnal
\nknowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years,
\nagainst her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or
\nagainst her will’ (Hale PC 628). The essential words in an
\nindictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter cognovit; but
\ncarnaliter cognovit, nor any other circumlocution without the
\nword rapuit, are not sufficient in a legal sense to express rape;
\n1 Hon.6, 1a, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale PC 628). In the crime of
\nrape, ‘carnal knowledge’ means the penetration to any the
\nslightest degree of the organ alleged to have been carnally
\nknown by the male organ of generation (Stephen’s “Criminal
\nLaw” 9th Ed. p.262). In ‘Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice’
\n(Volume 4, page 1356) it is stated “……even slight penetration
\nis sufficient and emission is unnecessary”. In Halsbury’s
\nStatutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) Volume 12, it
\nis stated that even the slightest degree of penetration is
\nsufficient to prove sexual intercourse. It is violation with
\nviolence of the private person of a woman-an-outrage by all
\nmeans. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious act
\nof the highest order.\n<\/p>\n
The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will
\nalways remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is
\nnot merely physical injury but the deep sense of some
\ndeathless shame. The offender robs the victim of her most
\nvaluable and priceless possession that is dignity.  In the
\ninstant case a child aged about 6 years is the victim.  Law
\nfrowns upon such acts and provides for more stringent
\nsentence as shall be dealt with infra.\n<\/p>\n
The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting
\nclaims and demands.  Security of persons and property of the
\npeople is an essential function of the State.  It could be
\nachieved through instrumentality of criminal law.
\nUndoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law
\nmust find answer to the new challenges and the courts are
\nrequired to mould the sentencing system to meet the
\nchallenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine
\nsocial order and lay it in ruins.  Protection of society and
\nstamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law
\nwhich must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
\nTherefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of “order” should
\nmeet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his
\n“Law in Changing Society” stated that, “State of criminal law
\ncontinues to be  as it should be  a decisive reflection of
\nsocial consciousness of society”.  Therefore, in operating the
\nsentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery
\nor the deterrence based on factual matrix.  By deft modulation
\nsentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered
\nwith mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given
\ncircumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the
\nmanner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for
\ncommission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the
\nnature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances
\nare relevant facts which would enter into the area of
\nconsideration.  For instance a murder committed due to deep-
\nseated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of
\ndeath.  But an organized crime or mass murders of innocent
\npeople would call for imposition of death sentence as
\ndeterrence.  In Mahesh v. State of M.P<\/a>. (1987) 2 SCR 710), this
\nCourt while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“It will be a mockery of justice to permit
\nthe accused to escape the extreme penalty of
\nlaw when faced with such evidence and such
\ncruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for
\nthe accused would be to render the justicing
\nsystem of the country suspect.  The common
\nman will lose faith in courts.  In such cases,
\nhe understands and appreciates the language
\nof deterrence more than the reformative
\njargon.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate
\nsentence would do more harm to the justice system to
\nundermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and
\nsociety could not long endure under such serious threats.  It
\nis, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence
\nhaving regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in
\nwhich it was executed or committed etc. This position was
\nilluminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v.
\nState of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).\n<\/p>\n
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of
\nproportionality in prescribing liability according to the
\nculpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily
\nallows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a
\nsentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that
\nreflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised
\nby the special facts of each case.  Judges in essence affirm
\nthat punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice
\nsentences are determined largely by other considerations.
\nSometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that
\nare offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of
\nkeeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic
\nresults of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a
\ndeparture from just desert as the basis of punishment and
\ncreate cases of apparent injustice that are serious and
\nwidespread.\n<\/p>\n
\tProportion between crime and punishment is a goal
\nrespected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it
\nremains a strong influence in the determination of sentences.
\nThe practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal
\nseverity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a
\nradical departure from the principle of proportionality has
\ndisappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a
\nsingle grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
\nAnything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any
\nserious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration
\nthat is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from
\nthose considerations that make punishment unjustifiable
\nwhen it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly
\ndisproportionate punishment has some very undesirable
\npractical consequences.\n<\/p>\n
After giving due consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate
\nsentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and
\nmitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has
\nbeen committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of
\nreally relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by
\nthe Court.  Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task.  It
\nhas been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle MCGDautha
\nv. State of Callifornia: 402 US 183: 28 L.D. 2d 711  that no
\nformula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a
\nreasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate
\npunishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may
\naffect the gravity of the crime.  In the absence of any foolproof
\nformula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to
\ncorrectly assess various circumstances germane to the
\nconsideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in
\nthe facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment
\nmay be equitably distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil v. State of Gujarat<\/a> (1994
\n(4) SCC 353), it has been held by this Court that in the matter
\nof death sentence, the Courts are required to answer new
\nchallenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these
\nchallenges.  The object should be to protect the society and to
\ndeter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by
\nimposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts
\nwould operate the sentencing system so as to impose such
\nsentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the
\nsentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Even
\nthough the principles were indicated in the background of
\ndeath sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases
\nwhere appropriate sentence is the issue.\n<\/p>\n
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on
\nthe social order in many cases may be in reality a futile
\nexercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to
\noffences against women, (more particularly a child of tender
\nage) dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money,
\ntreason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral
\ndelinquency which have great impact on social order, and
\npublic interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require
\nexemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager
\nsentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of
\nlapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise
\ncounter productive in the long run and against societal
\ninterest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by
\nstring of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.\n<\/p>\n
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B<\/a>. (1994 (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
220), this Court has observed that shockingly large number of
\ncriminals go unpunished thereby increasingly, encouraging
\nthe criminals and in the ultimate making justice suffer by
\nweakening the system’s creditability. The imposition of
\nappropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court
\nresponds to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal.
\nJustice demands that Courts should impose punishment
\nbefitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence
\nof the crime.  The Court must not only keep in view the rights
\nof the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime
\nand the society at large while considering the imposition of
\nappropriate punishment.\n<\/p>\n
Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of
\nRajasthan<\/a>, (1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said
\ncase that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the
\ncriminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate
\npunishment in a criminal trial.  The Court will be failing in its
\nduty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime
\nwhich has been committed not only against the individual
\nvictim but also against the society to which the criminal and
\nvictim belong.  The punishment to be awarded for a crime
\nmust not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be
\nconsistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime
\nhas been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting
\npublic abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry
\nfor justice against the criminal”. If for extremely heinous crime
\nof murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any
\nprovocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case
\nof deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.
\nThese aspects have been elaborated in State of M.P. v.
\nBabbu Barkare<\/a> alia Dalap Singh (2005(5) SCC 413).\n<\/p>\n
Both in cases of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 376<\/a>
\nthe Court has the discretion to impose a sentence of
\nimprisonment less than the prescribed minimum for ‘adequate
\nand special reasons’. If the Court does not mention such
\nreasons in the judgment there is no scope for awarding a
\nsentence lesser than the prescribed minimum.\n<\/p>\n
In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the
\nsentence the statutory requirement is that the Court has to
\nrecord “adequate and special reasons” in the judgment and
\nnot fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a
\nsentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has
\nnot only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and
\nspecial would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket
\nformula can be indicated. What is applicable to trial Courts
\nregarding recording reasons for a departure from minimum
\nsentence is equally applicable to the High Court.  The only
\nreason indicated by the High Court is the young age of the
\naccused and the fact that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
\nThe same can by no stretch of imagination be considered
\neither adequate or special.  The requirement in law is
\ncumulative.\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted that the victim in the instant case is a
\nchild who was about 6 years of age at the time of commission
\nof offence.  Sub section (2) of Section 376<\/a> IPC provides for a
\nmore stringent punishment when the victim is under 12 years
\nof age.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case the High Court was clearly in error  in
\nreducing the sentence without recording any adequate and
\nspecial reason in imposing lesser sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the legal position as indicated above the
\nHigh Court’s order is clearly unsustainable.
\n\tAccordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside
\nand that of the trial court is restored.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 762 of 2006 PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT: Santosh Kumar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/07\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-262142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-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 Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-17T19:46:34+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=\"13 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-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T19:46:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2528,\"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-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-17T19:46:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-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 Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 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 Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-17T19:46:34+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T19:46:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006"},"wordCount":2528,"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-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-17T19:46:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-santosh-kumar-on-14-july-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 Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 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\/262142","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=262142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}