{"id":262984,"date":"2010-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-04-22T23:32:05","modified_gmt":"2017-04-22T18:02:05","slug":"state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/152\/2009\t 14\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 152 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t-Yes.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?-No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?-No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?-No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?-No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPARESHBHAI\nRANABHAI PRAJAPATI & 3 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nPUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/05\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
1)\tThe
\npresent appeal, under Section 378<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated
\n6\/12\/2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal District
\nCourt, Anand in Sessions Case No.93 of 2007 whereby the accused were
\nacquitted of the charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1)\tComplainant
\nNimuben (victim) on the day of incident i.e. on 6\/6\/2004 had given
\nJanva Jog Entry before Anand Police which was later on i.e. on
\n20\/6\/2004 treated as complaint.  Complainant filed the complaint to
\nthe effect that one and half years before the filing of the
\ncomplaint, her marriage took place with the accused Pareshbhai.
\nInitially, the complainant was living in joint family at her
\nmatrimonial house consisting of elder sister-in-law and
\nbrother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law and her husband.\n<\/p>\n
2.2)\tIt
\nis the case of the complainant that thereafter she along with her
\nhusband started living separately.  Before one year all her in-laws
\nwere keeping her well and her married life was going smoothly.  But
\nafter sometime, following the say of his parents and other family
\nmembers, her husband started taunting her saying that she had not
\nbrought anything from her parental house.\n<\/p>\n
2.3)\tHe
\nwas asking the complainant to get TV, Bike and cash amount from
\nparental house and as the complainant did not pay any heed to demand
\nof the accused, he started beating up the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
2.4)\tOn
\naccount of mental and physical torture, complainant fell ill and
\ntherefore, she went to her parental house where her parents took care
\nof her and got her well and healthy.  Before 15 days of incident,
\nbrother of the complainant brought her at her matrimonial house where
\n all the complainant’s husband and her in-laws were residing.\n<\/p>\n
2.5)\tA
\nTV was brought and brother asked the accused not to torture her.
\nHowever, after departure of brother of complainant, her in-laws again
\nstarted taunting her saying that as to why she did not come back with
\nmotorbike and saying so they also gave fist and kick blows to the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
2.6)\tIt
\nis also the case of the complainant that she had given complaint at
\nthe hospital saying that she herself set her on fire and did so on
\nthe compulsion by her husband.  However, the fact was that on the day
\nof the incident when she was working in kitchen, her husband came
\nfrom her back side and sprinkled kerosene on her and set her on fire.
\n She fell down on the ground.  Thereafter, he in-laws called maternal
\nuncle of complainant who came there and brought her to Anand Civil
\nHospital in his jeep where she gave complaint to Anand Police but
\nunder compulsion of her husband since her husband was saying the
\ncomplainant to give her version before the police in his and his
\nfamily members’ favour.  Thus, on the day of accident i.e. on
\n6\/6\/2004  complaint falls within purview of Section 498(A)<\/a> only and
\nthereafter on 20\/6\/2004 after getting recorded real version of the
\ncomplainant, as stated above, Section 307<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code
\nwas added to the charge sheet prepared by the Investigating Officer
\nwhich was prepared after recording statements of the complainant, her
\nrelatives, necessary witnesses and also after drawing necessary
\npanchnamas and collecting ample evidence against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
2.7)\tCharge-sheet
\nwas submitted against the respondents before the court of learned
\nJMFC, Anand.\n<\/p>\n
2.8)\tThereafter,
\nas the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions  Court, the same
\nwas committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Anand under
\nSection 209<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code.  The case was numbered as
\nSessions Case No.93 of 2007.  The trial was initiated against the
\nrespondents-accused.\n<\/p>\n
2.9)\tTo
\nprove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the
\nfollowing witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tNimuben
\nParshottambhai-complainant (Victim) – Exh.12<\/p>\n
[2]\tSanjaybhai
\nParshottambhai Prajapati- brother of victim \tExh.18<\/p>\n
[3]\tParshottambhai
\nRavjibhai ?  father of victim – Exh.19 <\/p>\n
[4]\tKamleshbhai
\nParshottambhai Prajapati ?  brother of \tvictim – Exh.28<\/p>\n
[5]\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Samir N. Raval- Exh.13<\/p>\n
[6]\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Arvindbhai J. Dalvadi ?  Exh.23<\/p>\n
[7]\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Rikhav D. Shah ?  \tExh.44 <\/p>\n
[8]\tDipsinh
\nArjubsinh Solanki  – Exh.29 <\/p>\n
[9]\tUdesinh
\nKhatubhai Thakore  – Exh.32<\/p>\n
[10]\tPratipalsinh
\nAjitsinh Zhala – Exh.39 <\/p>\n
[11]\tBalabhai
\nLalabhai Rathod ?  Exh.-47 <\/p>\n
2.10)\tIn
\norder to support the case, the prosecution has produced the following
\ndocuments:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tOriginal
\ncomplaint ?  Exh.30 <\/p>\n
[2]\tPanchnama
\nof place of incident ?  Exh.20 <\/p>\n
[3]\tFSL
\nreport of mobile van officer ?  Exh.48 <\/p>\n
[4]\tInvestigation
\norder of Janva Jog No.61 of 2004 -Exh.49 <\/p>\n
[5]\tUtara
\nof Telephone Vardhi ?  Exh.50 <\/p>\n
[6]\tYadi
\nwritten to PSO ?  Exh.51  <\/p>\n
[7]\tPublic
\nreport ?  Exh.33<\/p>\n
[8]\tYadi
\nmade to Executive Magistrate ?  \tExh.-52, 53 <\/p>\n
[9]\tYadi
\nmade by M. O., Anand Nagarpalika – Exh.24<\/p>\n
[10]\tCertificate
\nof treatment of victim ?  Exh.14 <\/p>\n
[11]\tYadi
\nwritten by Dr. Samir Raval ?  Exh.15 <\/p>\n
[12]\tYadi
\nwritten to M. O., V. S. Hospital- Exh.-34<\/p>\n
[13]\tCertificate
\nof injuries of victim ?  Exh.45<\/p>\n
[14]\tYadi
\nwritten to M. O. – Exh.35<\/p>\n
[15]\tYadi
\nwritten to add Section 307<\/a> of IPC -Exh.36<\/p>\n
[16]\tNote
\nof muddamal ravanagi ?  Exh.37<\/p>\n
[17]\tReceipt
\nof FSL ?  Exh.38<\/p>\n
[18]\tForwarding
\nletter of FSL ?  Exh.40<\/p>\n
[19]\tReport
\nof FSL ?  Exh.41<\/p>\n
[20]\tCase
\npapers of treatment of victim Nimuben ?  Exh.16<\/p>\n
[21]\tCase
\npapers of treatment of victim Nimuben ?  Exh.25,26<\/p>\n
[22]\tYadi
\nof reference to Karamsad Hospital of victim ?  \tExh.27<\/p>\n
[23]\tMedical
\nCertificate of burn of victim ?  Exh.46 <\/p>\n
2.11)\tAt
\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under
\nSection 313<\/a> of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of
\nprosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Anand
\nacquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by
\njudgement and order dated  6\/12\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.12)\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order
\npassed by the Sessions Court, Anand, the appellant-State has
\npreferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tThough
\nserved, the respondents-accused have not remained present.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tLearned
\nAPP contended that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is
\nagainst the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly
\nconsidered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the
\nprovisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has
\nproved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present
\nrespondents. Learned APP has also taken this court  through the oral
\nas well as the entire documentary evidence. He submitted that the
\nprosecution witness had clearly deposed in his deposition that the
\nrespondents-accused were found committing offence  punishable under
\nSection 307<\/a>, 498(A)<\/a> and 114<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.  He further
\nsubmitted that there was no reason for the Sessions Judge to
\ndisbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the respondents-accused
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tAt
\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would
\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an
\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very
\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In
\nthe case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &
\nAnr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated
\nabout the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
\nacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
?S54.\n<\/p>\n
 In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the
\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
\nrecorded by the court below.??\n<\/p>\n
5.1)\tFurther,
\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
\n(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
?S42.\tFrom
\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tAn
\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tThe
\nCode<\/a> of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tVarious
\nexpressions, such as, ?Ssubstantial and compelling reasons??, ?Sgood
\nand sufficient grounds??, ?Svery strong circumstances??,
\n?Sdistorted conclusions??, ?Sglaring mistakes??, etc. are not
\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an
\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature
\nof ?Sflourishes of language?? to emphasis the reluctance of an
\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power
\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tAn
\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tIf
\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.??\n<\/p>\n
5.2)\tThus,
\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even
\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
5.3)\tEven
\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa
\nV. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the
\nCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In
\npara 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S16.\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal
\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement
\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.??\n<\/p>\n
5.4)\tSimilar
\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of
\nState of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in
\n2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state
\nof MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this
\nCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
5.5)\tIt
\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give
\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\nCourt in the  case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported
\nin AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S? This
\ncourt has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
\nChaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty
\nof the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial
\ncourt on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
\nreiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general
\nagreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which
\nis under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.??\n<\/p>\n
5.6)\tThus,
\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tWe
\nhave gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court.
\nWe have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by
\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\nAdvocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
6.1)\tWhile
\nappreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, it is found
\nthat there are many contradictions in oral version of witnesses.  The
\noriginal complaint is not signed by the complainant.  It is required
\nto be noted that there is gross delay in lodging the complaint.  The
\nincident has happened on 6\/6\/2004 and the complaint was lodged on
\n20\/6\/2004.  Medical evidence has also not supported the case of the
\nprosecution.  The dying declaration is also contrary to medical
\nhistory which was given before the doctor about the incident.
\nTherefore the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the
\naccused persons.  The view taken by the Sessions Court is just and
\nproper and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said
\nfinding.\n<\/p>\n
6.2)\tFrom
\nthe evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not
\nproved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP is not in a
\nposition to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter
\nor that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest
\nillegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court
\nhas ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
\nthe trial court was completely justified in acquitting the
\nrespondents-accused of the charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tWe
\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely
\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
9)\tWe
\nare, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court
\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the
\nappeal is hereby dismissed.  Record and Proceedings to be sent back
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
(K.S.\n<\/p>\n
JHAVERI, J.) <\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.) <\/p>\n
(ila)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/152\/2009 14\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 152 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - 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-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-22T18:02:05+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-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T18:02:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2398,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\",\"name\":\"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-22T18:02:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - 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-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-22T18:02:05+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-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T18:02:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2"},"wordCount":2398,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2","name":"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-22T18:02:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-11-august-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs ) The on 11 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/262984","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=262984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}