{"id":266047,"date":"2002-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002"},"modified":"2015-09-25T07:13:10","modified_gmt":"2015-09-25T01:43:10","slug":"raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: J Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  73 of 2002\nAppeal (crl.)  74 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRaghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Haryana & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/11\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SEMA,J<\/p>\n
These\ttwo   appeals\tarise\tout of\t a  common  judgment  and  order
\npassed\tby  the\t learned  Additional  Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, convicting the
\nappellants   in\t  Sessions   Case No. 32 of  1995 and sentenced them to suffer
\nRigorous Imprisonment on the following Sections of law as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Offence U\/s\tSentence awarded\tAmount of fine\tSentence in default
\n\t\t\t\t\tImposed\t\tof payment<\/p>\n
148 IPC<\/a> Two years\t\tNil\t\t\t–\n<\/p>\n
302 IPC<\/a> Imprisonment\tRs. 1000\/-\t\tSix months RI
\nr\/w149IPC<\/a>\tfor life<\/p>\n
325 IPC<\/a> Three years\tRI\tRs. 300\/-\t\tTwo months RI
\nr\/w 149 IPC<\/a><\/p>\n
323 IPC<\/a> Six months\tRI\tNil\t\t\t–\n<\/p>\n
r\/w 149 IPC<\/a><\/p>\n
452 IPC<\/a> Three years RI\tRs. 300\/-\t\tTwo months RI
\nr\/w 149 IPC<\/a><\/p>\n
436 IPC<\/a> Seven years RI\tRs. 700\/-\t\tFive months RI
\nr\/w 149 IPC<\/a><\/p>\n
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  By the
\naforesaid judgment all the nine accused have been convicted.  The
\nconvictions   and  sentences  have    been    confirmed\t  by  the  High\t  Court.
\nCriminal  Appeal    No. 73 of\t2002\tis   preferred\t  by   accused
\nRaghunath    and    Criminal\tAppeal\t No. 74 of  2002  is  preferred by the
\nremaining eight accused, namely, Ram Kishan s\/o Ram Pat, Anil @ Ajay
\nKumar s\/o Ram Kishan, Manohar Lal s\/o Bohru, Desh Raj s\/o Ram Pat, Siri
\nChand s\/o Bohru, Satish s\/o Siri Chand, Sunil s\/o Ram Kishan and Jagmal
\ns\/o Ram Pat.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe complainant parties are close relatives of deceased Kundan
\nLal.  The accused are also inter-related (accused Nos. 2 and 6 being the sons
\nof accused No. 1 Ram Kishan, accused Nos. 3 and 7 brothers of accused No.
\n1, accused Nos. 4 and 9 inter-se brothers, accused No. 5 being the son of
\naccused No. 4), except accused No. 8.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore adverting to the points urged by counsel for the\t appellants we
\nmay, at this stage, notice that there is a rift between the two groups.\t While
\nconsidering the evidence of witnesses, particularly of PWs 1 and 2, one
\ncould not loose sight that it is in the evidence of the prosecution  that the
\ndeceased Kundan Lal had contested the election of Sarpanch against accused
\nManohar Lal earlier.  It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that just a
\nday after the date of incident Panchayat elections were to be held.  The fight
\nfor the post of Sarpanch was between Raj Singh and one Satbir.\tThe
\ncomplainant party was supporting Raj Singh and the accused were the
\nsupporters of Satbir.  It is also in the evidence on record that both criminal
\nand civil litigation was pending between the complainant and the accused
\ngroups.\t Therefore, the rift between the complainant and the accused groups
\nwas writ large prior to the date of the incident.  In such a situation\t one
\nshould\t  be\tcautious  while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution case, as revealed in the FIR, was set in motion on
\nreceipt of information received from Badshahpur Police Station through
\nwireless that  there was a fight in village Teekli and the injured were
\nadmitted in the hospital.  On the basis of the said information, ASI Bhup
\nSingh had noted the Farad Bayan.  After recording the statement of the
\ncomplainant party, a prima facie case was found and a case under Sections
\n148<\/a>, 323<\/a>\/302<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/452<\/a>\/436<\/a>\/427<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> of the Indian Penal
\nCode was registered.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-2 complainant, Sumer Singh lodged the FIR stating that on
\n18.12.1994, at about 9.30 p.m., his wife Smt. Indrawati, father Kundan Lal,
\nmother Smt. Premwati, brothers Sher Singh and Sunder Lal, and Smt. Munni
\nwife of Sher Singh were present in their house.\t Accused Ram Kishan, Sunil,
\nAnil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lal, lass
\nwith lathis and stones entered the house of the deceased Kundan Lal  by
\nbreaking the door open and on entering accused Anil Kumar inflicted a lathi
\nblow which fell on the head of Kundan Lal (deceased) father of the
\ncomplainant, as a result of which he fell on the ground.    Thereafter,
\naccused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghnath, Siri Chand, Saish
\nand Manohar Lal caused injuries indiscriminately with lathis and stones to
\nthe complainant, his mother Smt. Parmeshwari, his wife Smt. Indira, his
\nbrothers Sunder Lal and Sher Singh and brother’s wife Smt. Munni Bai.  On
\nhearing a noise from the members of the complainant party, Sube Singh son
\nof Makhan Lal, Karan Singh  son of Pyare Lal, Ram Khilari son of Ami
\nChand and Satbair Singh son of Chhatter Singh, all resident of the same
\nvilage, came to the spot when the accused set on fire a heap of cow dung
\ncakes (Bitoras) lying on the roof of the house and also the bundles of fodder
\nlying near the chaff-cutting machine.  It is further stated that accused Ram
\nKishan gave a Lalkara exhorting that members of the complainant party be
\nburnt alive.  Karan Singh and Sube Singh when tried to intervene also
\nsustained injuries from the accused.  It is further stated that the complainant
\nparty also caused injuries to Ram Kishan in self-defence.  In course of the
\ninvestigation, the IO found prima facie case against the accused-appellants
\nunder the aforesaid Sections and submitted the challan.\t The prosecution
\nmainly relied on the evidence of two injured witnesses,\t PW-1  Karan Singh
\nson of\tPyare Lal and PW-2 Sumer Singh son of deceased Kundan Lal.
\nInjured Smt.Parmeshwari, Smt. Indira, Sunder Lal, Sher Singh and Smt.
\nMunibai were not examined.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants, seriously doubted the genesis of the
\nprosecution story with regard to the place of occurrence as revealed from the
\nsketch map (Exht.P5).  It is contended by Mr. K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior
\ncounsel, appearing for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.73 of 2002 and
\nMr.Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants in
\nCrl.A.No.74 of 2002 that it is quite unusual that the complainant party
\nnamely Karan Singh, Satbir Singh, Ram Khilari and Sube Singh, sitting in a
\nPoli and smoking Hukka, allowed the accused party to break the main gate
\nof  Poli and saw them going into the house of Kundan Lal.  But the
\ncomplainant party remained a mute spectators without any resistance.
\nSimilarly, it is argued that the hall, in which the accused party is stated to
\nhave assaulted the complainant party marked points A, B, C, D, F and G,
\nwithin a radius of six feet is inherently improbable.  It is their contention that
\ncomplainant party numbering seven and the accused party numbering nine
\ntotaling 16, armed with lathis of six long feet, it will be inherently
\nimprobable to accommodate the complainant party and the accused party in
\na hall within a radius of six feet and wielding the lathis and raining blows at
\nthe same time.\t  The hall of deceased Kundan Lal in which the accused
\nparty is said to have assaulted the complainant party with the lathis and
\nbricks is within the radius of six feet.  According to the prosecution story,
\nthe complainant party consisting of seven family members and the accused
\nparty consisting of 9 in number, were assembled in the hall of Kundan Lal.
\nHaving considered the submission with the ground reality and after
\napplication of our mind, we are of the view that it would be inherently
\nimprobable that the accused  nine in number,  to have wielded and raining
\nblows at the same time with lathis of six feet long  in a hall within the radius
\nof six feet with seven members of the complainant party totaling 16 persons
\nin the room.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, the blood stained earth, Muffler and lathis, said to have
\nbeen taken in possession by the police in course of investigations were sent
\nfor F.S.L.  The result of F.S.L. is marked Exh. 8.  It is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban (Karnal)
\n\tReport No. FSL(H) 94\/B-3801\t\t\tDated 14.2.1996
\n\tCase FIR No. 972\t\t\t\t\tDated 19.12.1994
\n\tU\/s 148\/149\/436\/302\/201 IPC<\/a>\t\t\tP.S. Sdr.Gurgaon<\/p>\n
Results of Serological Analysis of Blood<\/p>\n
\tExht. No.\tName of Exhibit\t\tOrigin\tGroup\n<\/p>\n
\t1.\t\tBlood Stained Cotton\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\t\tMuffler\t\t\tHuman\t`O’
\n\t3a.\t\tPyjama\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive
\n\t3b.\t\tUnderwear\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\t\tSample blood\t\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\t\tLathi\t\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\t\tLathi\t\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\t\tLathi\t\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\t\tLathi\t\t\t\tHuman\tInconclusive
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMaterial disintegrated<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tDr. M.K. Goyal
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAsstt. Director (Biology)
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tForensic Sc. Laboratory (H)
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMadhuban (Karnal)”\n<\/p>\n
There is no evidence on record to show that the blood stain sent for
\nFSL bears a certificate that the blood is a human blood and it belongs to a
\nparticular group which is the same blood group of the deceased Kundan Lal.
\nTherefore, the blood  stain is a human blood is not conclusive evidence that
\nit belongs to the blood group of deceased Kundan Lal.  This also can be
\nexamined in the background of the defence version that accused Ram Kishan
\nwas kidnapped  and taken inside the house of Kundan Lal forcibly, wherein
\nhe was beaten up by the complainant party and received several bodily
\ninjuries.   PW-4 Dr.B.B. Sharma had examined accused Ram Kishan on
\n18.12.1994 at 11.10 p.m. and found the following six injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tAbrasion on right eye-brow outer and 2 cm. x   cm.
\nsurrounding area was swollen.  Fresh clotted blood was present.
\nX-ray was advised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t1 cm.  x   cm.\tlacerated wound.  It was skin deep on
\nleft maxillary prominence.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThere was swelling below left elbow on fore-arm.  It was
\n6 cm.\tx  4 cm.  X-ray left elbow and forearm was advised.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAbrasions 6 cm. horizontal  x\t4   cm.\t  on back of the
\nleft side chest.  Lower ribs outer part.  X-ray chest was advised.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t4 cm   x    1 cm.   x bone deep lacerated vertical wound
\non middle part left leg was present.  Fresh clotted blood was
\npresent.  X-ray left leg was advised.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLacerated wound\t cm   x\t 1 cm.\tx  muscle deep 2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
away.  There was 1   cm\t  x    cm   x muscle deep on the front
\nof the right leg middle part ;surrounding area was swollen.  X-
\nray right leg was advised.”\n<\/p>\n
P.W. 5 Dr. B. B. Aggarwal, who conducted X-ray examination of
\naccused Ram Kishan stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
“On 20.12.1994, I conducted X-ray examination of Ram Kishan
\nson of Ram Pat, 42 years, male r\/o Teekli, vide MLR No.
\nBBS\/126\/94 Ex. DB and found fracture olecranon process of
\nleft upper limb (elbow) and fractures 8th, 9th and 10th ribs of left
\nside chest.”\n<\/p>\n
It is pertinent to notice that the blood stained earth was removed from
\nthe point ‘A’, which is the hall of Kundan Lal. In the absence of certifying a
\nparticular group of blood by FSL, the blood so collected from the point ‘A’
\ninside the hall of Kundan Lal could be the blood of accused Ram Kishan
\nfrom which place he is reported to have been beaten up mercilessly by the
\ncomplainant party.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs already noticed, the FIR was lodged on 19.12.94 at 2.30 a.m. for the
\nincident said to have  taken place on 18.12.94 at about 9.30 p.m.  An
\naccident which is stated to have taken place in the village Teekli, is stated to
\nbe at a distance of about 14 KM from Gurgaon.  It is in the evidence on
\nrecord that Sadar Police Station, Gurgaon, and police post Badshahpur fall
\non the way from village Teekli to General Hospital, Gurgaon.  The
\ncomplainant party did not stop at the two police stations and proceeded
\nstraight to the General Hospital, Gurgaon. It is urged that the conduct of the
\ncomplainant party is unusual and this has created doubt about genesis of the
\nprosecution story.   This contention has been rejected by the learned trial
\ncourt that the complainant party was busy in getting the first and immediate
\naid to the injured persons of the family.   We are of the view that in the
\nordinary circumstances, it is quite imperative that the complainant party
\ncould have  stopped at the police station, sought necessary help from the
\npolice station and also given the first hand information to the police.\t From
\nthe evidence of P.W.4  Dr. B.B. Sharma, it appears that the injuries
\nsuffered by the complainant party are simple in nature except that of Kundan
\nLal (deceased).\t In our view, therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances
\nfor not reporting to the police station at the first hour especially when the
\npolice stations are on the way to the General Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, as noticed earlier, FIR was lodged on 19.12.1994 at 2.30
\na.m.  PW-4 examined the injured\t at 10.30 p.m. on 18.12.1994.  In the FIR,
\nPW-2 has stated that “on entering our house, Anil Kumar gave a lathi blow
\non the head of my father which he was holding in his hand, and my father
\nfell on the ground and Ram Kishan, Sunil, Desh Raj, Jagmal, Raghunath,
\nSiri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lal caused injuries with their respective lathis,
\nbrick bats to me, my wife Indira, Bhabhi Munni Bai, my mother
\nParmeshwari, brother Sunder Lal and elder brother Sher Singh
\ncontinuously.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-6 Dr.Vineeta Bhatnagar, conducted the post mortem examination
\non the dead body of Kundan Lal on 19.12.1994 at 1.30 p.m. and found the
\nfollowing injuries on his body:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tA bone deep lacerated wound of 5  x  2 cms size on scalp
\n1.5 cm from the bridge of the nose in the mid line.
\nSubcutaneous tissues showed hemorrhage and haemotama
\nformation and underlying bone was fond fractured.  Meninges
\nand brain matter found lacerated.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tA bone deep lacerated wound of 2.5   x\t 2.5   cms size on
\nthe scalp.   6\tcm. above and behind the tip of left ear.  His
\nsubcutaneous tissue shows hemorrhage and heamatoma
\nunderlying bone found fractured.  Meninges and brain matter
\nwas found lacerated.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tA bone deep lacerated wound of size 4.5\t  x  1.5  cms on
\nright side.  7 cm. above the tip of right ear.\tSubcutaneous tissue
\nshows hemorrhage meninges and brain matter was found
\nlacerated.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAn abrasion of 15 cm  x\t 4 cm on the left upper arm just
\nbelow the shoulder on the lateral side.\t Subcutaneous tissues
\nshowed hemorrhage.  Bones were intact.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. opined that “the death was due to hemorrhage and shock
\nresulting from ante-mortem injuries (Nos.  1 to 3) to brain,
\nwhich were, cumulatively as well as individually, sufficient to
\ncause death in the ordinary course of Nature”.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-2 Sumer Singh has deposed before the Court as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Accused Anil inflicted a lathi blow on head of his father
\nKundan, followed by a lathi blow each by accused Ram Kishan
\nand Manohar Lal on his father’s head and another lathi blow by
\naccused Raghunath on his (Kundan Lal’s) shoulder”.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the appellants, would argue that the version of PW-2
\nbefore the Court is an improvement on the basis of medical evidence
\ninasmuch as in the FIR he has stated that it was the accused Anil who on
\nentering the house gave a lathi blow on the head of his father and the rest of
\nthe accused started beating him and members of the family continuously. In
\nour view, the particular part played by lathi blow each by accused  Ram
\nKishan and Manohar Lal on his father’s head and another lathi blow by
\naccused Raghunath on his father’s shoulder stated by PW-2 in his deposition
\nbefore the Court appears to be well an after thought after seeing the medical
\nevidence.  This substantial contradiction in the FIR and in his deposition
\nbefore the Court makes\ta  serious doubt of the presence of  complainant
\nPW-2 – Sumer Singh  at the place of occurrence, where deceased Kundan
\nLal was assaulted.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, PW-2 also stated that the complainant party also caused
\ninjuries to accused Ram Kishan in self-defence.\t PW-1 Karan Singh,
\nhowever, stated categorically in his deposition before the Court that none of
\nthe accused had received injuries.  This material contradiction between the
\ntwo injured eye-witnesses PWs-1 and 2 would rendered their presence
\ndoubtful.  This apart, there is also evidence on record that except accused
\nNo.1- Ram Kishan, the rest of the accused did not sustain any injuries on
\ntheir bodies.  If the eye witness account of PWs-1 and 2 are to be believed, it
\nis their specific statement that accused Anil caused the first blow on the head
\nof deceased Kundan Lal.\t Normally, the exercise of right of private defence
\nis directed towards the assailants.  Accused Anil, who stated to have dealt
\nwith the first blow on the head of the deceased Kundan Lal, did not sustain
\nany injury.  The rest of the accused also did not sustain any injuries.\t  It is
\nutterly unbelievable story of the prosecution that  the right of private defence
\nis directed against only accused Ram Kishan who has sustained as many as
\nsix injuries on his body, as described above.  At the same time, the nature of
\nthe injury sustained by accused Ram Kishan would disclose that the
\ncomplainant party was armed and\t had sufficient time to inflict the injuries.
\nThis circumstance would lend support to the defence version that Ram
\nKishan was kidnapped and forcibly lifted to the house of Kundan Lal and
\nbeaten up mercilessly by the complainant party.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, in the FIR PW-2 Sumer Singh did not mention about the
\nparticulars of the injuries suffered by him at the hands of the accused.  He
\nhas, however, stated in his statement recorded under section 161<\/a> on
\n19.12.1994 that Desh Raj caused injury on his left shoulder by stone,
\naccused Sunil caused injury on his left ankle and left foot by lathi, accused
\nSatish caused injury on his right ankle and below right knee by stone.\tThis
\nwitness deposed before the court that accused Desh Raj caused him injury
\non his right shoulder and accused Sunil on the right ankle and accused Satish
\non left knee respectively.  This, in our view, is a substantial contradiction
\nwhich is fatal to the prosecution story.   No reliance can be placed on such a
\ncontrary statement with regard to the injuries sustained by him caused by
\neach of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe defence raised serious contentions on the discrepancy of the
\ninjuries described by PW-2, said to have been sustained by him from each of
\nthe accused but the same has been rejected by the learned trial court on
\ntenuous grounds.  The aforesaid contention has been rejected by the learned
\ntrial Judge in paragraph 91 of his order as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“In the totality of circumstances it is to be mentioned that it is
\nnot a case of non-existence of injuries but while appearing as
\nPW-2 Sumer Singh instead of injuries No.1 and 2 being
\nmentioned on left shoulder and left ankle, he mentioned the
\nsame on the right side.\t Similarly injury No.5 though is present
\non the right knee but was mentioned to be on the left side.  This
\nslip, though exists, would not be a circumstances to discredit
\nthe prosecution version.  It may be a slip of tongue or a
\nbonafide mistake”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn our view, the aforesaid discrepancies appearing in the statement of
\nPW-2 would render the prosecution story wholly unreliable, concocted and
\nwell an after thought.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs already noticed, accused Ram Kishan sustained as many as six
\ninjuries.  The rest of the accused did not suffer any injury.  There is no
\nexplanation by the prosecution how the accused Ram Kishan received
\ninjuries except in the statement of PW-2 that injuries caused to Ram Kishan
\nwere  in self defence, which has already been discussed.   The fact that only
\naccused Ram Kishan received injuries would disclose that accused Ram
\nKishan alone was present at the place of incident.   This would also support
\nthe theory of defence that accused Ram Kishan was kidnapped by the
\ncomplainant party to the house of  deceased Kundan Lal and beaten up by
\nthem mercilessly and not on account of right of private defence as projected
\nby the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. J.P. Dhanda, learned  counsel, appearing for the respondents
\nurged that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
\nrecorded by the learned trial court Judge and affirmed by the High Court.
\nWhile it is true that normally this Court would not interfere with the
\nconcurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances, where legal
\nprocess are disregarded or principles of natural justice are violated or
\nsubstantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted (see Balak Ram v.
\nState of U.P<\/a>. (1975) 3 SCC 219).  The High Court is a final Court of appeal
\nand normally this Court would not interfere, if the High Court on the
\nreappraisal of evidence confirms the trial court judgment.  But in the present
\ncase, going through the judgment of the High Court, with respect we may
\npoint out that the High Court merely affirmed the findings of the trial Court
\nwithout reappraisal of the evidence on its own.\n<\/p>\n
As already pointed out, accused Ram Kishan sustained as many as six
\ninjuries on his body, injury Nos.3 and 4 stated to be grievous in nature.  Both
\nthe trial court and the High Court accepted the version of PW-2 that injuries
\nwere caused in self-defence.   We have already disbelieved the version of
\nPW-2.\tNo explanation whatsoever has been afforded by the prosecution
\nwith regard to the injuries on the person of the accused – Ram Kishan.\n<\/p>\n
The question, whether prosecution is obliged to explain the injuries
\nsustained by the accused in the same occurrence and failure to explain
\ninjuries on the accused would construe that the prosecution has suppressed
\nthe truth and also the origin and genesis of the occurrence, has been in
\ncontroversy before this Court in a catena of decisions.\t A three-Judge Bench
\nof this Court in Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar<\/a> (1998) 7
\nSCC 365, referred to another three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
\nVijayee Singh vs. State of U.P<\/a>. (1990) 3 SCC 190 at page 202 para 10,
\nwhich held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“In Mohar Rai case it is made clear that failure of the
\nprosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries
\nfound on the accused may show that the evidence related to the
\nincident is not true or at any rate not wholly true.  Likewise in
\nLakshmi Singh case also it is observed that any non-explanation
\nof the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the
\nprosecution case.  But such a non-explanation may assume
\ngreater importance where the evidence consists of interested or
\ninimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which
\ncompetes in probability with that of the prosecution.  But where
\nthe evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the
\ncourt can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact that
\nthe injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot by itself
\nbe a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the
\nwhole case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, as noticed earlier, the prosecution evidence
\nconsists of interested or inimical witnesses.  Therefore, non-explanation of
\nthe injuries sustained by Ram Kishan may assume greater importance. There
\nis also the defence version which competes in probability with that of the
\nprosecution.  In our view, therefore, non-explanation of the injuries
\nsustained by the accused Ram Kishan, which are grievous in nature, renders
\nthe prosecution story not wholly true.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant party, it is in the
\nevidence of PW-4  Dr. B.B. Sharma, Medical Officer, General Hospital,
\nGurgaon that he examined PW-1  Karan Singh, s\/o Pyare Lal on
\n18.12.1994 at about 10.30 P.M. and found the following injuries on his
\nperson:\n<\/p>\n
1.\t” Lacerated wound horizontally placed 12 cm. x 2 cm.
\nmuscle deep.  It was on right parietal region.\t8 cm. from right
\near.  Fresh blood was coming.  Surrounding area was swollen.
\nX-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t5 cm. x 2 cm. muscle deep lacerated wound on right side
\nof fore-arm near mid line.  It was 4 cm. from injury No. 1.  It
\nwas horizontal.\t X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tOblique lacerated wound on right occipital region.  It was
\n6 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep.  Fresh bleeding was present.
\nSurrounding area was swollen.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLeft leg was swollen lower 1\/3rd.  Angulation of the bone
\nwas present.  It was 12 cm.  from the ankle joint.  Lacerated
\nwound on anterior size 2cm. x 1cm.  It was bone deep.  10 cm.
\nabove ankle joint.  Underlying bone was present.  X-ray left leg
\nwas advised.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLeft index and middle fingers were swollen.  Advised x-
\nray index and middle fingers.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tRight fore-arm was swollen in the middle part.\tX-ray
\nright fore-arm was advised.\n<\/p>\n
Injury No. 4 was declared grievous and injury Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5
\nand 6 were kept under observations.  After seeing the X-ray
\nreport No. MLX-1284 dated 19.12.1994 injury No. 1 was
\ndangerous to life.  Injuries No. 4 and 5 grievous.  Rest were
\nsimple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
The weapon used was blunt and injury No. 4, it was penetrating
\nweapon.\t It was within 24 hours.  The duration between the
\ninjuries and the MLR within 24 hours.”\n<\/p>\n
On the same day, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Sunder Lal s\/o Kundan
\nLal and found the following injuries on his person.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t“Horizontal lacerated wound 6 cm. x  cm. into muscle
\ndeep.  It was 8 cm. from left ear on parietal region.  Fresh
\nclotted blood was present.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tLacerated wound on left side fore-head.\t Oblique from
\nmid line to left side.\tIt was 4 cm. x 1 cm.  It was muscle deep.
\nFresh clotted blood was present.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle deep right
\nside of parietal region near mid line.\tIt was vertically placed.  It
\nwas 2 cm. posterior to injury No. 2.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tOn front of right leg anterior side there was 4 lacerated
\nwounds.\t (a) 10 cm. below knee.\t 1-1\/2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle
\ndeep (b) 3 cm. below injury No. A.  2 cm. x 1 cm. x muscle
\ndeep (c) 6 cm. below injury No. B.  4 cm. x 1 cm. into muscle
\ndeep.  It was vertically placed (d) 7 cm. below injury No. C.  2
\ncm. x  cm. into skin deep.  X-ray right leg was advised.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLacerated wounds on front left leg.  Fresh clotted blood
\nwas present.  5-A (1 cm. x  cm. into muscle deep.  It was
\nvertical and 8 cm. below 5-B)  1-1\/2 cm. x  cm. x muscle
\ndeep it was 8 cm. below injury No. 5-A. (5-C) 1-1\/2 cm. x
\ncm. into skin deep.  It was 8 cm. from injury No. 5B.  X-ray left
\nleg was advised.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tOn the left fore-arm there was abrasion.  On the posterior
\nsize Middle part 2 cm. x  cm. was vertically placed.
\nAdjoining area was swollen.  X-ray left fore-arm was advised.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tRight fore-arm was swollen in middle and upper 1\/3rd.
\nAdvised x-ray right fore-arm.  Abrasion on posterior aspect 3
\ncm. below elbow.  It was 2 cm. x  cm.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAbrasions on the back of right index finger first phalanx
\nposterior size 1 cm. x\tcm.  X-ray right index finger was
\nadvised.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t Swelling on angle of left jaw 5 cm. x 4 cm.  It was red in
\ncolour.\t X-ray left jaw was advised.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t Pattern contusion elongated in shape on middle part of
\nabdomen 3 cm. above umbilicus the margins were echymosed.
\nIt was oblique, the rounded and was towards left and upper.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tPattern oblique contusion on back of the left side of chest
\nextending from mid line towards outer and lower side upto
\ncostal margins.\t It was 16 cm. x 2 cm.\tThe margin was
\necchymosed.  X-ray chest was advised.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tDefused red swelling on anterior and outer aspect of left
\nshoulder.  It was 12 cm. x 8 to 10 cm. in size.\t X-ray left
\nshoulder was advised.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries No. 1 to 12 were kept under observations.  The duration
\nbetween the injuries and examination was within 24 hours.  The
\ninjuries were caused by blunt weapon.\n<\/p>\n
After seeing the X-ray report No. M.L.X.-1285 dated
\n19.12.1994.  Injury No. 1, 2, 3 were kept under observations
\nand the opinion of treating Doctor is required.\t Injury No. 4 was
\nsimple in nature, injury No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 were simple
\nin nature.  The injury No. 11 repeated X-ray was advised, so
\ndefinite opinion can be given after seeing the X-ray report
\nrepeated.”\n<\/p>\n
On the same day at about 11.40 P.M., Dr. B.B. Sharma examined
\nIndira w\/o Sumer Singh and found the following injuries on her person:\n<\/p>\n
1.\t“There was oblique lacerated wound on right parietal
\noccipital region 13 cm. x 1-1\/2 cm. x muscle deep extending
\nfrom mid line towards right side.  Occipital region.
\nSurrounding area was swollen.  Fresh clotted blood was
\npresent.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tRight thumb was swollen.  More in proximal part
\nmovement were painful.\tX-ray right thumb was advised.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSlight swelling on palmer side of left hand near thumb.\n<\/p>\n
The nature of injuries are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Injury No. 3 is simple in nature, however injury No. 1 and 2
\nwere kept under observations.\n<\/p>\n
The injuries were caused within 24 hours of the examination.
\nAll the injuries were caused by blunt weapon.\n<\/p>\n
I have seen X-ray report No. MLX 1287 dated 19.12.1994,\t I
\ndeclared injury No. 2 grievous in nature and opinion about
\ninjury No. 1 can be given after treating the record of the
\ndoctor.”\n<\/p>\n
On 19.12.1994, at 12.15 A.M. Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Smt. Muni
\nw\/o Sher Singh and found the following injuries on her person:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tVertical lacerated wound in front of parietal region near
\nmid line right side.  It was 8 cm. x 1 cm.  It was a muscle deep.
\nFresh clotted blood was present.  Surrounding area was
\nswollen.  X-ray skull was advised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tComplained of pain on back of left side of the chest.  No
\napparent injury was seen.  X-ray chest was advised.\n<\/p>\n
\tInjuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observations.  The
\nduration of the injuries was within 24 hours of the examination.
\nThe injuries were caused by blunt weapon.”\n<\/p>\n
On 19.12.1994, at 12.35 AM, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined Sube Singh
\ns\/o Makhan Lal and found the following injuries on his person:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tContusion on the back of left fore-arm below elbow.  8
\ncm. x 6 cm. in the centre of the contusion.  There was abrasion
\nwith fresh clotted blood 1 cm. x  cm.  X-ray left fore-arm was
\nadvised.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tDefused contusion on the outer side of right shoulder
\nupper part 10 cm. x 6 cm.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAbrasion on front of left knee joint 2 cm. x 2 cm.  Fresh
\nclotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
Injury No. 1 was kept under observation, however, injury No. 2
\nand 3 were declared simple in nature.  The probable duration of
\nthe injuries are within 24 hours.  The injuries were caused by
\nblunt weapon.\n<\/p>\n
On the same day, at about 1.00 AM, Dr. B.B. Sharma examined
\nSumer Singh s\/o Kundan Lal and found the following injuries on his person:\n<\/p>\n
1.\t2 adjacent abrasions on outer aspect of left shoulder 1
\ncm. x  cm. 1 cm. x  cm.\t 8 cm. from upper border of
\nshoulder joint.\t Fresh clotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tOn inner maleolus of left ankle\t cm. x 1 cm. abrasion
\nwas present.  Fresh clotted blood was present.\t Surrounding
\narea was swollen.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tRight big toe was swollen more on the dorsal side.
\nAdvised X-ray right big toe.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t3 abrasions on inner aspect of right ankle joint.\n<\/p>\n
4-A.  1 cm. x  cm. on centre of maleolus for injury No. 4-B.\n<\/p>\n
4-B. 1 cm. x  cm. on ankle joint.  It is 4 cm. from injury No.
\n4-A towards heal.\n<\/p>\n
4-C.  cm. x 1.2 cm. abrasion.  It was 3 cm. above injury No.
\n4-A.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAbrasion on front of middle part of right leg 1 cm. x
\ncm. fresh clotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
Injury No. 1,2,4,5 were simple in nature however, injuries No.
\n3 was kept under observation for X-ray.\t The probable duration
\nof all the injuries was within 24 hours for examination.  The
\ninjuries were caused by blunt weapon.”\n<\/p>\n
Doctor opined that “the injury No.5 of Sumer Singh (PW-2) having
\nbeen caused by a fall on a hard surface can not be ruled out.  Similarly,
\ninjury No.3 on the person of Sube Singh having been caused by a fall on a
\nhard surface can not be ruled out.  The injury No.2 on Muni Devi is only a
\ncomplaint of pain and I can not give its duration and the weapon used.\tThe
\ninjury No.3 on the person of Indira, having been caused by a fall on the hard
\nsurface can not be ruled out.  The injury No. 6 and 8 on the person of Sunder
\nLal having been caused by a fall on the hard surface can not be ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
As already noticed, out of the injured complainant party, only Karan
\nSingh  PW-1 and Sumer Singh  PW-2 have been cited as witnesses.\t The
\nothers were not examined.  The nature of the injuries sustained by the
\ncomplainant party would clearly suggest that such injuries could be caused
\nin a melee which  is the version of the defence that injuries sustained by
\ndeceased Kundan Lal and other members of the complainant party have been
\ncaused by a mob consisting of 300-350 while trying to rescue the accused
\nRam Kishan.    Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the
\ncomplainant    party\tit   is\t   quite    probable\tthat   they sustained injuries<\/p>\n
accidentally while being involved in a mob fight.  We are clearly of the view
\nthat the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant party would
\nclearly suggest that such injuries could only be caused in a melee wherein
\nthe mob of 300-350 gathered at the place as projected by the defence.  Such
\ninjuries sustained by the complainant party could not be attributed to the
\naccused\t in the circumstances  as explained above.\n<\/p>\n
In the fact and circumstances recited above, we are clearly of the
\nview, that the prosecution has not come up with a true story.  It has
\nsuppressed the facts.  If that be the case, the whole prosecution story would
\nstand on a quick sand.\tThe prosecution has failed to establish its case
\nbeyond reasonable doubts.   It\t is  now  well\tsettled\t principle of law that if
\ntwo views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other adversely
\nagainst it, the view favoring the accused must be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, these appeals are allowed, the convictions and sentences
\npassed on the appellants are set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of
\nthe    charges\t  framed   against   them.  The\t appellants  are in jail.  They are<\/p>\n
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any
\nother case.\n<\/p>\n
The impleadment application is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 Author: J Sema Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 73 of 2002 Appeal (crl.) 74 of 2002 PETITIONER: Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/11\/2002 […]<\/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-266047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - 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\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-25T01:43:10+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T01:43:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5579,\"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\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T01:43:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - 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\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-25T01:43:10+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T01:43:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002"},"wordCount":5579,"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\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002","name":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T01:43:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghunath-ram-kishan-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-on-13-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raghunath, Ram Kishan & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/266047","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=266047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}