{"id":26558,"date":"1999-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999"},"modified":"2017-02-06T23:53:27","modified_gmt":"2017-02-06T18:23:27","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, D, P . Mohapatra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  431 of 1991\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTEJA RAM AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/03\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS & D,P . MOHAPATRA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 (2) SCR 29<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
THOMAS, J. It was by a midnight blitz that two sleeping inmates of a
\ndwelling house were axed to death by armed assailants. One of the victims
\nwas the old mother of the other victim, The younger among them was not the
\ntarget of the assailants but he was mistaken for his brother. In the
\nSessions court seven persons were put on trial as the assailants in the
\naforesaid double murder episode. Out of them six were convicted under
\nSection 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and for certain
\nother lesser but allied offences. They were sentenced to imprisonment for
\nlife for the principal offence and for lesser terms for the lesser
\noffences. When they appealed a Division Bench of the High Court of
\nRajasthan set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted them all.
\nState of Rajasthan has, therefore; come up in appeal to this Court by
\nspecial leave. As there were seven accused in the case, out of Which six
\nare the respondents now, they can be referred to as accused in the same
\nrank as they were arrayed in the trial court so that possible mistake in
\nidentify ing them can be prevented, AI Teja Ram, A 2 Ram Lai and A 3
\nBhanwar Lai are the sons of one Maga Rani and they are cousins of deceased
\nRam Lai. Other accused are close relatives of those two accused. The
\nbackdrop of the case unfurls a story of continued hostility which existed
\nas between the cousins on account of disputes over landed properties. PW15
\nMota Ram (son of deceased Amf: Gamni) had launched litigation against Al
\nand A 2. On a motion made by him the authorities concerned have initiated
\nproceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against A1
\nTeja Ram and A 2 Ram Lai. Thus, they looked upon each other with
\nbitterness.\n<\/p>\n
The incident happened on the night next morning of which was a Sunday
\n(13.9.1981). Prosecution case is that all the seven accused, armed with axe
\narid lathis etc, travelled in a tractor and at a subsequent stage they
\nwalked on foot and reached the house of the deceased by midnight.\n<\/p>\n
Deceased Ram Lai and his mother Gamni were sleeping inside the room
\nadjoining the gate of their house. Mota Ram used to sleep at that place but
\non the fateful night Ram Lai thought it convenient to sleep there as that
\nwas the cruel game of his fate. The assailants entered into the room and
\nhacked both the deceased with axe. The squall of the victims rumbled the
\nneighbourhood. All those who heard it rushed to the scene but by the time
\nthey reached the assailants took to their heels and escaped from the place.
\nOther inmates of the house carried the injured in a vehicle to the hospital
\nand on the way Mota Ram (PW15) informed the police about the incident at
\nthe Police Out Post at Auwa. From there he proceeded to Kharchi police
\nstation and lodged the FIR, The SHO (PW21) recorded the statement of both
\nthe injured who were removed to the hospital thereafter. Ram Lai died on
\nthe same night, while his mother lived for a week more fighting With death
\nand she too succumbed to the injuries on 21.9.198-1.\n<\/p>\n
Trial court, while convicting six accused, mainly relied on Ex. P 31 and
\nEx. P 32 which are the two dying declarations attributed to deceased Ram
\nLai and Gamni respectively which were recorded by PW21, the Investigating
\nOfficer. Besides the above, the trial court relied on certain
\ncircumstances, such as the testimony of witnesses who reached the scene saw
\nthe accused running away with axes and lathis, and recovery of the weapons
\neffected pursuant to the informations elicited from the accused. But the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan declined to act on the two
\ndying declarations. High Court was not persuaded to place any reliance on
\nthe witnesses who claimed to have seen the assailants running away. High
\nCourt put-forth two reasons for adopting that course. First is that
\nprosecution failed to examine any independent witness even though such
\npersons were residing in the neighbour-hood, and the Witnesses examined by
\nthe prosecution for .that point are close relatives of the deceased. Second
\nis that there are discrepancies between their versions and such
\ndiscrepancies are of a substantial nature. The High Court declined to act
\non the evidence relating to the recovery of axes for the main reason that
\nsince human blood could be detected only on one of them while origin of the
\nblood on the other was not established, there was room for entertaining
\ndoubt as to the real person whose blow with the axe would have caused the
\ninjury.\n<\/p>\n
In the final end the Division Bench, after voicing a lamenting chord that
\n“it is Unfortunate that two cold blooded murders are going unpunished in
\nthis case,” expressed its view that it Is unsafe to maintain the
\nconviction. Hence, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence
\npassed on the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Though on the defence side a number of witnesses, were examined neither the
\ntrial court nor the appellate court placed any reliance on any of them. Nor
\ndid the respondents make any endeavour to convince us that those witnesses
\nare of any use for the defence.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the State of Rajasfhan contended
\nthat the approach made by the High Court is wholly untenable in discarding
\nthe best evidence on the strength of some trivial reasons. Mr. Doongar
\nSingh; advocate for the accused argued in extenso supporting the reasoning
\nof the High Court and strongly pleading for maintain ing the acquittal<\/p>\n
We are in agreement with the argument of Shri Doongar Singh that the High
\nCourt was justified in not acting on the two dying declarations. The
\ninjuries found on the body of Ram Lai as noted by PW9 Dr. Narid Kishore
\nSharma are the following :\n<\/p>\n
(i) Vertical incised wound with oozing of blood of 8.5 x 1,5 cms x brain
\ndeep on the right forehead region to frontal region from eye brows to
\nupward lacerated brain tissues coming out from the wound. Injury was
\ngrievous and was caused by sharp object.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Hematoma of both the Eyelids of right eye.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Haematoma of left upper eye lid.\n<\/p>\n
The same doctor noticed the following injury on the body of Smt. Gamni:\n<\/p>\n
“Vertical incised wound with blood oozing with 8.5 x 3.0 x brain deep on
\nthe left temporal region 3 cm above the ear pinna. Brain tissue was lying
\nout of the wound,”\n<\/p>\n
Even if the injured was able to mutter something or even speak out
\nsomething after sustaining the above injuries it is extremely unsafe to
\nplace any credence on such statements as the brain functions of the injured
\nwould have impaired due to the brain injury.\n<\/p>\n
But we find it difficult to side-step the remaining circumstances as
\nlightly as Division Bench of the High Court has down-staged them. The first
\namong the circumstances is the strong motive for AI Teja Ram and A 2 Ram
\nLai because the family of Mota Ram had moved the authorities to initiate
\nproceedings against them under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, This shows the acuteriess of hostility which prevailed as
\nbetween the two warring factions. That aspect remains undisputed, though
\nthe defence contention is that they were falsely implicated on account of
\nthat enmity. Of course that possibility has to be eschewed before counting
\nthe enmity aspect as a circumstance against the accused. For that endeavour
\nthe Court has to look at other circumstances presented by the prosecution
\nagainst the accused.\n<\/p>\n
PW 13 (Idan), father of Mota Ram was sleeping inside his house during the
\nnight. Mota Ram was also sleeping in the same room. Gariini and her other
\nson Ram Lal were sleeping inside the room which adjoins the gate. PWl 3
\nsaid in his evidence that on hearing the sound of a cry he woke up and
\nrushed to the place wherefrom the cry emanated and there he saw all the
\naccused, among whom he noticed A1 Teja Ram and A2 Ram Lai holding Kulhadi
\n(axe). They were seen running away from, the :scene,<\/p>\n
PW18 (Roopa Ram) who is brother of PW13(ldan) who was sleeping in his house
\nsituated in the neighbour-hood and his son Chhoga Lai (PW4.) who was
\nsleeping inside the cabin of a truck (Which was parked in front of the
\nhouse Of the deceased) also heard the sound of cry and they too rushed up
\nto the scene and saw all the accused scampering away from the. place and Al
\nand A2 had axes with them and others have lathis.\n<\/p>\n
PW1.0 (Oghada Ram) is another brother of PW 13 (Idan) and he toowas
\nresiding close by. He also said that by midnight he heard the sound of a
\nloud cry from the house of his brother. PWI3-Idan and he also rushed to the
\nplace and saw the accused, among them Al (Teja Ram) and A2 (Ram Lai) were
\nin possession of axes.\n<\/p>\n
The fact that the above witnesses were residing in the immediate
\nneighbourhood was not disputed either in the trial court or at the
\nappellate stage. When the incident of this nature occurs the persons who
\nwould normally run to the place of occurrence are those living in the
\nneighbour-hood, But the High Court did not act on the testimony of those
\npersons who reached at the scene immediately on a very fragile reasoning.\n<\/p>\n
High Court pointed out a discrepancy in the evidence as between two sets of
\nwitnesses, PW4 Chhogalal and PW15 Mota Ram said that the assailants were
\nseen going out from the western gate of the house while PW10 Oghada Ram and
\nPW18 Roopa Ram said that the assailants went out through the eastern gate.
\nThis according to the High Court is a very substantial contradiction
\nbetween them.\n<\/p>\n
There is little justification for blowing up such a motely discrepancy to
\nthe size of a mountain and then to reject the whole evidence by depicting
\nit as a material discrepancy. What the High Court over-looked in the above
\nexercise was the core of the evidence and consideration of. it on broad
\nprobabilities. We have to bear in mind the time when the occurrence took
\nplace-the wee hours of the night, the sleeping locality was woken up by the
\nyelling voice crying for help from one’s own keth and kin. When they rushed
\nto the scene their focus would be on the victims and the identity of the
\nfleeing assailants. Perhaps some of the assailants would have gone out
\nthrough one gate and others through the other gate. After all both gates
\nwere of the same house and are situate close to each other.\n<\/p>\n
We have absolutely no doubt that whoever rushed to the spot on hearing the
\nsqueak or the out cry, it is most unlikely that they would have remained
\nwhere they were even after hearing the cries. It is extremely probable that
\nthe witnesses would have seen the fleeing assailants in such a hubbub and
\nif some witnesses did not correctly notice the exact gate (out of the two
\ngates) through which each one of the assailants flushed out, it is riot a
\ngood cause for drawing any adverse inference against such witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
Another reason which the High Court advanced to repel the testimony of such
\na good number of probable witnesses is that they are all close relatives of
\nthe deceased and that independent witnesses were not examined by the
\nprosecution. The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the
\nvictims often results in criminal justice going away. When any incident
\nhappens in a dwelling house the most natural witnesses would be the inmates
\nof that house. It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and
\ninsist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing. If the Court
\nhas discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that
\nsome other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the
\nincident in question then there is justification for making adverse
\ncomments against non-examination of such person as prosecution witness.
\nOtherwise, merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a prosecution
\nfor not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses.
\nProsecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed the
\nevents and not those who have not seen it though the neighbour-hood may be
\nrepleted with other residents also. One of the circumstances which trial
\ncourt relied on as incriminating the accused is the recovery of two axes
\n(Kulhadi) on the strength of statements of AI Teja Ram and A2. Ram Lai.
\nThey were subjected to chemical examination and the result is that both
\naxes were found stained with blood. When it was further subjected to test
\nby Serolegist the blood on one axe was found to be of human origin, while
\nthe blood stain on the other axe was found to have so disintegrated that
\nits origin became undetectable. Ex. PlO is the report of the Serologist.\n<\/p>\n
Axes hidden beneath the rags were disinterred with the help of information
\nelicited from the accused. According to PW21 (the Investigation Officer) Al
\nTeja Ram told him “I have concealed the axe under some rags and kept it at
\nthe left comer of the hut in my farm at Dhokwa.” The axe recovered pursuant
\nthereto on 2Q.9.:198i as per Ex. Pi4 seizure memo was marked as Article
\nNo.8. Similarly, PW 42 Ram Lai has told the Investigation Officer that “I
\nhave concealed the axe under some rags and placed it on a slab in the store
\nof my house”. On the said information another axe was recovered on
\n23;9.1981 as per Ex, P3 Seizure Memo. That axe has been marked as Article\n<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
The facts discovered from the aforementioiied statements and recovery of
\naxes are that those weapons were concealed by the said two accused.\n<\/p>\n
Normally, the above circumstance should have been given weighty
\nconsideration iii the evaluation of circumstantial evidence. But the High
\nCourt down staged it on a reasoning which is difficult to sustain. This is
\nwhat the High Court has observed regarding the evidence relating to the
\nrecovery of the two axes (Kulhadi) “The evidence of the blood stained
\nKulhadi is not sufficient as the prosecution has not been able to prove
\nthat Kulhadi which was stained with human blood was recovered from whom.
\nThus it is not clear whether the recovered Kulhadi was of Teja Ram or of
\nRamlal. The other infirmity in the Chemical Examiner’ Report is that it
\ndoes not mention the extent of blood seen on the Kulhadi. It has not been
\nestablished clearly as to which particular accused, the incriminating axe
\nbelonged. As such, it can not be used against any one of these’ two
\naccused.”\n<\/p>\n
Failure of the Serologist to detect the origin of the blood, due to
\ndisintegration of the serum in the meanwhile, does not mean that the blood
\nstuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all. Sometimes it
\nhappens, either because the stain is too insufficient or due to
\nhematological changes and piasmatic coagulation that a Serologist might
\nfail to detect the origin of the blood. Will it then mean that the blood
\nwould be of some other origin? Such a guess work that blood on the other
\naxe would have been animal blood is unrealistic and far fetched in the
\nbroad spectrum of this ease. The effort of the criminal court should not be
\nto prowl for imaginative doubts. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable
\ndimension which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some
\nobjectivity no benefit can be claimed by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the accused made an effort to sustain the rejection of
\nthe above said evidence for which he cited the decisions in Prabhu Babaji
\nv. State of Bombay, AIR<\/a> (1956) SC. 51 and Raghav Prapdnna Tripathi \\. State
\nof UP, AIR (1963) SC 74. In the former Vivian Bose J. has observed that the
\nChemical Examiner’s duty is to indicate the number of blood stains found by
\nhim on each exhibit and the extent of each stain unless they are too minute
\nor too numerous to be described in detail. It was a case in which one
\ncircumstance projected by the prosecution was just one spot of blood on a
\ndhoti. Their Lordships felt that “blood could equally have spurted on the
\n-dhoti of a wholly innocent person passing through in the circumstances
\ndescribed by us earlier in the judgment.” In the latter decision this Court
\nobserved regarding the certificate of a chemical examiner that inasmuch as
\nthe; blood stain is not proved to be of human origin the circumstance has
\nno evidentiary value. “In the circumstances” connecting the accused with
\nthe murder. The further part of the circumstance in that case showed that a
\nshirt was seized from a dry cleaning establishment and the proprietor of
\nthe said establishment had testified that when the shirt was given to him
\nfor dry cleaning it was not blood stained.\n<\/p>\n
We are unable to find out from the aforesaid decisions any legal ratio that
\nin all cases where there was failure of detecting the origin of the. blood
\nthe circumstance arising from recovery of the weapon would stand relegated
\nto disutility. The observations in the aforesaid cases were made on the
\nfact situation existed therein. They cannot be imported to a case where the
\nfacts are materially different.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel, in this context invited our attention to one step which
\nPW2I (Investigation Officer) had adopted while preparing the seizure memos
\nEXiP 3 and Ex.P 4. He obtained the signature of the accused concerned in
\nboth the seizure rnernos: According to the learned counsel the aforesaid
\naction of the Investigating Officer was illegal and it has vitiated the
\nseizure. He invited our attention to section 162(1) of the Code which
\nprohibits collecting of signature of the person whose statement was reduced
\nto writing during interrogation. The material words in the sub-section are
\nthese :\n<\/p>\n
“No statement made by any person to a police officer in the cause of
\ninvestigation under the chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by
\nthe person making it ;…,.”\n<\/p>\n
No doubt the aforesaid prohibition is in premptory terms. It is more a
\ndirection to the investigating officer than to the court because the policy
\nunderlying the rule is to keep witnesses free to testify in court
\nunhampered by anything which me police claim to have elicited from them.
\n(Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR (1959) SC 1012 and Razik Ramv.JS
\nChouhan,MR (1975)SC 667. But if any Investigating Officer, ignorant of the
\nsaid provision, secures the signature of the person concerned in the
\nstatement, it does not mean that the witnesses’ testimony in the court
\nwould thereby become contaminated or vitiated. The Court will only reassure
\nthe witness that he is not bound by such statement albeit his signature
\nfinding a place thereon.\n<\/p>\n
That apart, the prohibition contained in sub-Section (1) of Section 162 is
\nnot applicable to any proceedings made as per Section 27 of the Evidence
\nAct. It is clearly provided in sub-Section (2) of Section 162 Which reads
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling
\nwithin the provisions of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence
\nAct, 1872, or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.” The
\nresultant position is that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to
\nobtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while
\npreparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section
\n27 of the Evidence Act. But; if any signature has been obtained by an
\ninvestigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Hence,
\nwe :cannot find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the
\naccused that the signatures of the accused in Ex.P 3 and P 4 seizure memo
\nwould vitiate the evidence regarding recovery of the axes.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the evidence of Head
\nConstable Jagaii Nath (PW 8) who was in-charge of the police outpost at
\nAuwa. The witness said, initially in his evidence, that PW15 (Mota Ram who
\nreached the outpost soon after the incident) who reported about the
\nincident could not mention the names of the assailants as he said that he
\ndid not know about the assailants. Learned counsel, laying emphasis on the
\naforesaid evidence contended that it knocks the bottom off the prosecution
\ncase. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the State invited our
\nattention to a farther portion of PWS’s evidence where the witness was
\npermitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor during which PW8
\nadmitted having told the Investigation Officer that PW15 had in fact
\nmentioned the names of the accused as the assailants.\n<\/p>\n
One of the permitted modes of impeaching the credit of a witness is proof
\nof former statements which is inconsistent with any part of his testimony,
\nas indicated in Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act. But the mode of using
\nsuch former statements for the purposes of contradicting the witness is
\nprescribed in Section 14 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be contended that
\nthe aforesaid former statement was not available for the defence to
\nconfront PW 8 (Mota Ram) since the Head Constable PW15 was examined later.
\nIt was open to the defence to request for recalling the witness for the
\npurpose of further cross-examination to impeach his veracity on the
\nstrength of the alleged former statement which came on record subsequently
\n(vide Naba Kumar Das v. Rudra Narayan Jana, AIR(1923) PC 95. In this case
\nPW15 was not asked anything about what he told or not told PWS-Head
\nConstable. We are unable to appreciate the contention of the learned
\ncounsel on that score: In view of the retracing made by PW15 during later
\npart of the cross-examination, we are not disposed to give any further
\nopportunity to the accused to confront PW8 with that material.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the considered view that the High Court has committed serious
\nerror in rejecting very sturdy circumstances as against Al Teja Ram and A2
\nRam Lal the cumulative effect of which was the irresistible conclusion that
\nthey were assailants in the double murder wherein deceased Ram Lai and his
\nmother Gamni were killed.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal in so far as the said two
\naccused (Teja Ram and Ram Lai) are concerned. We restore the conviction and
\nsentence passed on them by the trial court. We direct the Sessions Judge,
\nPali (Rajasthanj) to take immediate steps to put Al Teja Ram and A2 Ram Lal
\nback in prison to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 Bench: K.T. Thomas, D, P . Mohapatra CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 431 of 1991 PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT: TEJA RAM AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/03\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS & D,P . MOHAPATRA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 (2) SCR […]<\/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-26558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - 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-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-06T18:23:27+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=\"19 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-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-06T18:23:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3809,\"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-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-06T18:23:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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 Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - 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-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-06T18:23:27+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-06T18:23:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999"},"wordCount":3809,"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-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-06T18:23:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-teja-ram-and-ors-on-19-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Teja Ram And Ors on 19 March, 1999"}]},{"@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\/26558","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=26558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}