{"id":268299,"date":"2009-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-04T01:49:32","modified_gmt":"2019-02-03T20:19:32","slug":"chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n            HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       \n\n\n\n       Criminal Appeal No 432 of 2003 Criminal Appeal No 758 of 2003\n\n\n\n\n                1.  Chait  Ram\n\n                 2.  Jarha  @ Madhav\n\n                 3.  Anand   Ram\n\n                 4.  Sobharam\n                                  ...Petitioners\n\n\n                          Versus\n\n\n\n                 State  of Chhattisgarh\n                                ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!     Shri   P.K.C.  Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with  Shri  Shashi\n     Bhusan,  counsel  for  the  appellants  in  Cr.A.  No.\n     432\/2003\n     Shri  D.R.  Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri L.C.  Dash,\n     counsel for the appellants in Cr.A. No. 758\/2003.\n\n^     Shri  Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate, for the State  in\n      both the appeals.\n\n\n\n\n\nHonble Shri Rajeev Gupta,J,Honble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha \n\n\n\n\n\n       Dated:05\/01\/2009\n\n\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n\n\n(Appeals under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure)\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                       (05.01.2009)<\/p>\n
         Following   judgment   of   the   Court   was
\ndelivered    by
\nSunil Kumar Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  These appeals have been filed against the judgment and
\norder  dated  25th  of  March, 2003 passed  by  the  Second
\nAdditional  Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.)  in  Sessions
\nTrial No. 358\/2002, whereby, appellants Sobharam, Chait Ram
\nand  Jarha  @  Madhav have been convicted u\/ss  302  &  460
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life  and
\nto  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.500\/- in two counts  with  default
\nsentence  of  R.I.  for  1-1   month  under  each  count  &
\nappellant Anand Ram has been convicted u\/ss 302\/34 & 460\/34
\nI.P.C<\/a>.  and ordered to undergo similar sentences  as  above
\nunder  each  count.  It  was also  directed  that  all  the
\nsentences shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   The brief facts are that in the intervening night  of
\n2nd-3rd  May, 2002, some persons entered into the house  of
\nThakur  Ram and murdered his wife Bisahin Bai. They  caused
\ngrievous   injuries  to  Thakur  Ram.  Thakur  Ram   became
\nunconscious. He was taken to local hospital, from where, he
\nwas  referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur and  then
\nto  MMI  Hospital  at Raipur, but ultimately,  he  died  on
\n5.7.2002.   Since   he  was  throughout  unconscious,   his
\nstatement\/dying  declaration could not be recorded,  during
\nthe  said  period of more than 2 months. When the  incident
\nwas noticed in the morning of 3.5.2002, the Sarpanch of the
\nVillage Narayan Prasad (PW-11) reported the matter  to  the
\npolice.  The Investigating Officer reached to the scene  of
\noccurrence on 3.5.2002, prepared inquest (Ex.-P\/1)  on  the
\nbody  of the deceased, Bisahin Bai, and sent her dead  body
\nfor  its  postmortem to Community Health Center, Mahasamund
\nunder memo Ex.-P\/20-A, where the postmortem examination was
\nconducted  by  Dr.  R.K. Pardal (PW-5),  who  prepared  his
\nreport  Ex.-P\/20. He noticed multiple external injuries  on
\nthe  body  of  the  deceased, there was fracture  of  right
\nmandible  bone  and  right 1st & 2nd metacarpal  bone.  The
\nAutopsy  Surgeon opined that the cause of death  was  shock
\nand  haemorrhage  due to multiple incised wounds over  face
\nand  head and it was homicidal in nature. A merg intimation
\nrelating to deceased Bisahin Bai was registered as Ex.-P\/26
\nand  the  First Information Report was registered  as  Ex.-
\nP\/23.  In further investigation, plain soil, blood  stained
\nsoil, some clothes and one Pharsa, stained with blood  like
\nsubstance,  were seized from the place of occurrence  under
\nEx.-P\/27. Site plan was prepared under Ex.-P\/28.\n<\/p>\n
(3)    On  20.5.2002  memorandum  statement  of  appellant-
\nSobharam was recorded vide Ex.-P\/4, in pursuance of  which,
\none full-paint, shirt, saree, one silver chain and Rs.300\/-
\nwere seized at his instance under Ex.-P\/9 and one small-box
\n&  one  tin-box  were  seized near a Nala  under  Ex.-P\/10.
\nLikewise memorandum statement of appellant- Chait  Ram  was
\nrecorded under Ex.-P\/5 and one shawl, two full-shirts,  one
\ndhoti  and one full-paint & full-shirt were seized  at  his
\ninstance under Ex.-P\/11 and one rod was also seized at  his
\ninstance under Ex.-P\/7. Further on the same day, memorandum
\nstatement  of appellant- Jarha @ Madhav was recorded  under
\nEx.-P\/6  and  one  white dhoti, Rs.500\/-  cash,  one  green
\ncoloured dhoti, one old banniyan and a knife was seized  at
\nhis   instance   under  Ex.-P\/8.  Likewise  memorandum   of
\nappellant- Anand Ram was also recorded under Ex.-P\/18 and a
\nsum  of Rs.300\/- was seized from his possession under  Ex.-
\nP\/12.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   Among the above seized articles, one saree, one kurta
\n(small-shirt)  &  one  dhoti were  put  for  identification
\nconducted  by the Executive Magistrate, Mr. R.S.  Sonpipre,
\n(PW-3).  He  prepared  the  identification  memo  Ex.-P\/13,
\naccording   to   which,  on  1.7.2002,  in  the   aforesaid
\nidentification proceedings, those articles were  identified
\nto  be  the  articles  of  deceased  persons.  One  witness
\nGenduram Sahu identified the saree saying that he had  sold
\nthis saree to deceased Bisahin Bai for Rs. 175\/-. Other two
\nwitness  namely- Gaya Ram (PW-4) and Rakhu  Ram  identified
\nthe  kurta  & dhoti saying them to be that of the deceased,
\nThakur Ram, as they claimed that they had seen the deceased
\nwearing these clothes.\n<\/p>\n
(5)   The  seized  articles were sent  for  their  chemical
\nexamination  to Forensic Science Laboratory,  Raipur,  from
\nwhere,  the report Ex.-P\/33 was obtained. According to  the
\nF.S.L.  report,  blood stains were found on  blood  stained
\nsoil,  shawl, pharsa, saree & loongi seized from the  place
\nof  occurrence as also on knife seized from appellant Jarha
\nand  rod seized from appellant Chait Ram. The blood  stains
\nwere  also found on the saree  & blause of deceased Bisahin
\nBai.  No  blood  stains were found on other  articles.  The
\nSerologist  report  regarding origin and  grouping  of  the
\nblood could not be obtained.\n<\/p>\n
(6)   When Thakur Ram died on 5.7.2002, another inquest  on
\nhis  body  was prepared under Ex.-P\/2 on 5.7.2002  and  the
\ndead  body  was  sent  for postmortem to  Community  Health
\nCenter,  Mahasamund  vide memo Ex.-P\/24-A.  The  postmortem
\nexamination  was conducted by Dr. Girdhari  Lal  Chandrakar
\n(PW-10),  who  prepared his report Ex.-P\/24. He  noted  the
\nhistory  of multiple injuries and opined that the cause  of
\ndeath was cardio respiratory failure due to chronic illness
\nand  severe anaemia  and old injuries. He did not opine  it
\nto   be  homicidal  in  nature.  However  the  viscera  was
\npreserved and directed to be sent for further examination.\n<\/p>\n
(7)   After completion of usual investigation in the  above
\nmanner, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial
\nMagistrate, First Class, Mahasamund, who in turn  committed
\nthe matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where,  it
\nwas  received on transfer by the Second Additional Sessions
\nJudge,  Mahasamund, who conducted the trial  and  convicted
\nand sentenced the accused\/appellants as aforementioned.\n<\/p>\n
(8)   Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses in  this  case
\nand   the  conviction  of  the  appellants  is  based  upon
\ncircumstantial  evidence.  Learned  Sessions  Court   found
\nproved the circumstance of giving memorandum statements  of
\nappellants  as  also the seizure based on  such  memorandum
\nstatements. It also found proved the identification of  the
\narticles conducted by the Executive Magistrate and that the
\narticles  were  identified  to  be  that  of  the  deceased
\npersons. The Sessions Court held that on the basis of above
\nevidence,  supported by the chemical examiner’s report,  in
\nwhich the blood stains were found on the knife & rod seized
\nfrom  the possessions of the respective appellants, it  was
\nproved beyond reasonable doubts that the appellants entered
\ninto  the  house of the deceased persons in the intervening
\nnight  of 2nd & 3rd May, 2002, caused assault to them,  due
\nto  which  deceased  Bisahin Bai died  instantaneously  and
\ndeceased  Thakur Ram died after about two  months.  It  was
\nfurther  held  proved that the appellants  had  looted  the
\nproperties of the deceased as above, therefore,  they  were
\nliable for punishment under the aforementioned Sections  of
\nI.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
(9)   Learned  counsel for the appellants argued  that  the
\nmemorandum statements and seizure, so far as they relate to
\nthe clothes, are of no use because common clothes have been
\nseized  in consequence thereof and they were not identified
\nto  be  that  of  the deceased persons.  About  seizure  of
\nweapons,  they  argued that though the  blood  stains  were
\nfound  on them but in absence their origin and group  test,
\nthey  could  not  have  been used against  the  appellants.
\nTherefore,  there  is  no complete chain  of  circumstances
\nleading  to  singular hypothesis of guilt of the appellants
\nand  the  appellants  deserve  to  be  acquitted  on  these
\naccounts.\n<\/p>\n
(10)  On  the  other hand, learned counsel  for  the  State
\nopposed  these  arguments and supported  the  judgment  and
\norder passed by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
(11)  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  at
\nlength  and  have also perused the records of the  sessions
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
(12)  For  resting  the  conviction  solely  based  on  the
\ncircumstantial  evidence, the law laid  down  by  the  Apex
\ncourt in the matter of Dhananjoy Chhatterjee -Vs- State  of
\nW.B,  (1994)  2  SCC  22  is  that  “In  a  case  based  on
\ncircumstantial evidence, the circumstances from  which  the
\nconclusion  of  guilt is to be drawn have not  only  to  be
\nfully  established but also that all the  circumstances  so
\nestablished should be of a conclusive nature and consistent
\nonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those
\ncircumstances should not be capable of being  explained  by
\nany  other  hypothesis except the guilt of the accused  and
\nthe  chain  of the evidence must be so complete as  not  to
\nleave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent  with
\nthe  innocence  of the accused.  It needs no reminder  that
\nlegally   established   circumstances   and   not    merely
\nindignation  of the court can form the basis of  conviction
\nand  the more serious the crime, the greater should be  the
\ncare  taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes
\nthe place of proof.”\n<\/p>\n
(13) In Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others -vs- State of Jammu
\nand  Kashmir<\/a>,  AIR 2002 SC 3164, the Apex Court  laid  down
\nthat  there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
\non  circumstantial  evidence but the  conditions  precedent
\nbefore   conviction   could  be  based  on   circumstantial
\nevidence, must be fully established. They are:\n<\/p>\n
     1)   the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
\n          is to be drawn should be fully established. The
\n          circumstances concerned `must’ or `should’ and not `may’ be
\n          established;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2)   the facts so established should be consistent only
\n          with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
\n          say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
\n          except that the accused is guilty;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3)   the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
\n          tendency;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4)   they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
\n          the one to be proved; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     5)   there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
\n          to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
\n          consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
\n          that in all human probability the act must have been done
\n          by the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(14)  Almost similar view was again taken by the Apex Court
\nin  the matter of State of Goa -vs- Sanjay Thakran<\/a> &  anr.,
\n(2007  (4)  SBR 321.  While passing the said judgment,  the
\nApex Court has also taken note of the decision of Bodh  Raj
\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n
(15) In the present matter, it was firstly argued that  the
\ndiscovery of the tin-box and another box was made  from  an
\nopen  place near the Nala and therefore, the memorandum  is
\nof  no  consequence. The requirement of Section 27<\/a>  of  the
\nEvidence Act has been summarized by the Apex Court  in  the
\nmatter  of  Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur  –  Vs-  State  of
\nMaharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 310  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1)The  fact of which evidence is sought to  be
\n         given  must  be  relevant to the  issue.  It
\n         must  be  borne  in mind that the  provision
\n         has   nothing   to  do  with   question   of
\n         relevancy.   The  relevancy  of   the   fact
\n         discovered must be established according  to
\n         the  prescriptions relating to relevancy  of
\n         other  evidence connecting it with the crime
\n         in   order   to  make  the  fact  discovered
\n         admissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  The fact must have been discovered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) The  discovery must have been in consequence
\n         of   some  information  received  from   the
\n         accused and not by the accused’s own act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4) The  person giving the information  must  be
\n         accused of any offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)   He  must  be in the custody  of  a  police
\n     officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (6) The  discovery  of a fact in consequence  of
\n         information  received  from  an  accused  in
\n         custody must be deposed to.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (7) Thereupon   only   that   portion   of   the
\n         information  which  relates  distinctly   or
\n         strictly  to  the  fact  discovered  can  be
\n         proved. The rest is inadmissible.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     According to the prosecution, in the present case, the
\nboxes  were  found near the Nala, which was an open  place,
\ntherefore,  there  is no question of  a  “discovery”  as  a
\nconsequence of memorandum statements recorded u\/s  27.  The
\nsaid place was accessible to all and it was not proved that
\nthe  articles were in hidden condition. Therefore,  looking
\nto  the  long gap between the date of incident i.e. 2nd-3rd
\nMay,  2002  and  the  date of seizure  which  was  made  on
\n20.5.2002, such seizure cannot be said to be of any use  to
\nthe prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
(16)  So far as seizure of clothes are concerned, they  are
\ncommon  articles  and unless they are  proved  to  be  that
\nbelonging to the deceased persons, they cannot be  said  to
\nbe  connecting the accused persons from crime in  question.
\nIt  was  argued  before  us that these  articles  were  not
\nproduced before the Court during the trial and that it  has
\nalso  not come on record that where they were from date  of
\nalleged   seizure  to  the  date  of  identification   i.e.
\n1.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
(17) PW-3, Executive Magistrate, R.S. Sonpipre deposed that
\non  1.7.2002,  he  received one closed packet  from  police
\nchowki,  Patewa. When he opened the packet, he  found  that
\nthere  were  clothes in the packet. It was  containing  one
\ndhoti,  one  saree  &  one  kurta.  He  has  conducted  the
\nidentification proceedings and the articles were identified
\nby Genduram, Gaya Ram (PW-4) and Rakhu Ram. The proceedings
\nwere conducted in the premises of Tehsil office.\n<\/p>\n
(18)   A  perusal  of  entire  evidence  would  show   that
\neverything was arranged by the police personnels and he had
\nonly  conducted  the  proceedings. His  evidence  does  not
\ndisclose  that  the articles sent for identification,  were
\nsent  to  him in sealed condition and the seal was open  by
\nhim.  It  also  does  not come in his  evidence  that  this
\nwitness,  after  applying  his  mind,  has  mixed   similar
\narticles with the articles sent for identification. It only
\ncomes  that  the other articles of similar type  were  also
\nbrought by the police personnels but it does not come  they
\nwere containing same marks etc. (like blood mark present on
\ndhoti).\n<\/p>\n
(19)  Out of 3 witnesses identifying the articles only Gaya
\nRam (PW-4) has been examined and Genduram Sahu and Rakhuram
\nhave  not been produced by the prosecution for the  reasons
\nbest   known   to  them.  Gaya  Ram  (PW-4)  deposed   that
\nidentification  proceedings  was  conducted  and   he   has
\nidentified  the dhoti and kurta (shirt) of deceased  Thakur
\nRam.  Para-5  of the cross examination of this  witness  is
\nvery  interesting. The following portion of Para-5  of  his
\nexamination would be sufficient to impeach the testimony of
\nthis witness:-\n<\/p>\n
          “——-Bkdqjjke ?kVuk ds igys ml dqrsZ  dks  dbZ
\n          ckj  iguk Fkk A vkSj eSaus mls dbZ ckj igus ns[kk
\n          Fkk  A  ?kVuk ds ckn tc eSa Bkdqjjke ds ;gka  x;k
\n          Fkk  rc  Bkdqjjke us ogh dqrkZ iguk Fkk A  ftlesa
\n          mldk  `kjhj ls fudyk gqvk [kwu fudyk Fkk A  blfy,
\n          eSaus ml dqrsZ dks ns[kdj igpku fy;k A——-“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It  would  be a matter of common sense  that  if  the
\nmurder and loot has taken place in the intervening night of
\n2nd-3rd May, 2002 and the said kurta was looted in the said
\nnight  by the accused\/appellants, how this witness can  see
\nThakur Ram wearing that kurta on a subsequent day after the
\nincident  when  he had gone to meet him. The identification
\nof  saree  and other articles by Gendu Ram & Rakhu  Ram  as
\ndeposed  by the Executive Magistrate (PW-3) is also  highly
\nsuspicious.\n<\/p>\n
(20) The Apex Court in the matter of Harnath Singh -Vs- The
\nState of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1619, referring to the
\ndecision  of  Ramkishan Mithanlal Shamra  and  others  -Vs-
\nState  of  Bombay,  AIR  1955 SC 104,  speaking  about  the
\nreasons  for  holding  identification proceedings  and  the
\nscope  thereof  said  that “During the investigation  of  a
\ncrime  the  Police has to hold identification  parades  for
\nthe   purpose  of  enabling   witnesses  to  identify   the
\nproperties  which are the subject-matter of the offence  or
\nto  identify  the persons who are concerned  therein.  They
\nhave  thus  a  two-fold  object:  first,  to  satisfy   the
\ninvestigating  authorities  that  a  certain   person   not
\npreviously  known  to  the witnesses was  involved  in  the
\ncommission  of the crime or a particular property  was  the
\nsubject  of  the  crime.  It is also  designed  to  furnish
\nevidence  to  corroborate the testimony which  the  witness
\nconcerned tenders before the Court”.\n<\/p>\n
(21)  The purposes of prior test identification is to  test
\nand   strengthen  the  trustworthiness  of  that  evidence.
\nTherefore,  it  is accordingly considered a  safe  rule  of
\nprudence  to generally look corroboration of the  testimony
\nof  witness in the Court as to the identification.  In  the
\npresent  case,  the testimony of Gaya Ram (PW-4)  does  not
\nappear  to be reliable on the face of his evidence referred
\nto  above,  therefore, there is no question  about  seeking
\ncorroboration  from  other evidence like  the  evidence  of
\nproceedings of test identification. Therefore,  we  do  not
\nrely  on  the  circumstance of the  identification  of  the
\nproperties held to be proved by the learned Sessions Judge.
\n(22)  In  our  considered view, the learned Sessions  Judge
\nerred   in   law   in   holding  the  proceeding   of   the
\nidentification  to  be  genuine and further  that  in  such
\nidentification    the   properties   mentioned    in    the
\nidentification memo, Ex.-P\/13, were duly identified by  the
\nwitness to be that of the deceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
(23)  So far as circumstance of blood stains found  on  the
\nweapons  seized  from the possession of the two  appellants
\nare  concerned,  that  also we  do  not  feel  to  be  much
\nincriminating against the respective appellants.  What  was
\nthe  origin, what was the blood group and whether the blood
\nfound on those articles by the chemical examiner were those
\nof   the   groups  of  deceased  persons,  have  not   been
\nestablished.  In the facts and circumstances of  the  case,
\nwe  do  not  hold  this  in complete solitary  circumstance
\nsufficient  to  connect  the  appellants  from   crime   in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
(24) In the result, the appeals are allowed. The conviction
\nand sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside. They
\nare  acquitted of the charges framed against  them.  It  is
\nstated  that  the appellants are throughout in  jail  since
\n21.5.2002.  They  be  set  at liberty,  forthwith,  if  not
\nrequired in any other case.\n<\/p>\n
     CHIEF JUSTICE                           JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No 432 of 2003 Criminal Appeal No 758 of 2003 1. Chait Ram 2. Jarha @ Madhav 3. Anand Ram 4. Sobharam …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - 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\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-03T20:19:32+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-03T20:19:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2940,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-03T20:19:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - 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\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-03T20:19:32+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-03T20:19:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009"},"wordCount":2940,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009","name":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-03T20:19:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chait-ram-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chait Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/268299","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=268299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}