{"id":3031,"date":"1972-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972"},"modified":"2019-03-09T16:39:11","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T11:09:11","slug":"shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","title":{"rendered":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1823, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 835<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHIV  GOVIND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/03\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1823\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 835\n 1972 SCC  (3) 399\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1973 SC 467\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal trial--Enhancement--Enhancement of sentence by appellate\nCourt--Principles governing.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  question  of sentence is a matter of discretion.  It\t is  well\nsettled\t that when discretion has been properly\t exercised  along\naccepted judicial lines. an appellate Court should not\tinterfere\nto the detriment of an accused person.\tSuch interference will be\njustified  only by strong reasons Which must be disclosed on  the\nfact  of the, judgment.\t In a matter of enhancement there  should\nnot   be   interference\t when  the  sentence-,\t passed\t  imposes\nsubstantial  punishment. lnterference is only called for when  it\nis manifestly inadequate. [839 B]\nWhere  the  trial  court  after\t taking\t into  account\tall   the\ncircumstances  end  also  the discrepancies  in\t the  prosecution\nversion convicted the appellant to one years, imprisonment  under\ns.  366, Penal Code, and the High Court in appeal,  enhanced  the\nsentence to seven years' imprisonment.\nHELD : that the High Court had not noticed a number of facts duly\nconsidered by the trial court and, therefore, the exercise of the\npower of enhancement could not be justified. [839 G]\nBed Rai v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> [1955] 2 S. C.R. 583,  and\nAlamgir & Anr. v. The State of Bihar,<\/a> [1959] Supp.  I S.C.R. 464,\nreferred to.\nNabi  Bux and ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, A.<\/a> 1. R.  1972\nS.C. 495, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1972.
\nAppeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January
\n25,  1971  of  the Madhya Pradesh High\tCourt,\tIndore\tBench  in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 391 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
S.   K. Gambhir, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.   N. Shroff, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The, Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBeg, J. Shiv Govind, the appellant , has obtained Special.  Leave
\nto appeal against only that part of the Judgment and order of the
\nHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh by which his sentence of one, year’s
\nRigorous Imprisonment, passed by the Additional Sessions’  Judge,
\nIndore,\t upon a conviction under Section 366 Indian  Penal  Code,
\nwas enhanced to seven years’ Rigorous Imprisonment
\n836<\/span>
\nand a fine of Rs. 100\/-, and, in. default of payment of fine,  to
\nthree months’ further rigorous imprisonment.  The appellant, aged
\nabout  20  years  at the time of the alleged offence  of  9th  of
\nAugust, 1969, was the youngest of three persons who were  jointly
\ncharged\t and tried for offences punishable under Section 366  and
\n354 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case was : Kumari Seema, a girl below 18 years of
\nage,  was  offered a lift on his bicycle by  the  accused,  Kamal
\nSingh, aged 30 years, while she was returning to her homefrom her
\nSchool\ton  9th August, 1969.  The girl hesitated.  But,  as  she
\nreposed\t confidence in Kamal Singh, whom she looked upon  as  her
\nuncle, she accepted the offer.\tKamal Singh took Kumari Seema  on
\nhis  bicycle  to the Regal Cinema where she  part-took\tof  some.
\nrefreshment  ordered  by Kamal Singh.  Meanwhile,  the\tappellant
\nShiv  Govind and the accused Punani, aged 26, arrived in  a  car.
\nKamal Singh asked Kumari Seema to go with the two younger men  in
\ntheir car.  Seema refused.  Then, Kamal Singh asked her to go  on
\nhis bicycle to Yashwant Talkies.  She complied with this request.
\nAt  this  Cinema, Kanial Singh deposited his Cycle at  the  Cycle
\nstand.\t The  appellant Shiv Govind and his companion  Punam  had
\nfollowed  in  their car.  The three men succeeded  in  persuading
\nSeema,\tdespite her initial refusal, to sit in the car and to  go
\nfor  a short pleasure trip in it on the, definite assurance  that
\nshe will soon be reached home.\tAfter the girl had sat in the car
\nshe  was driven to a place called Mandow, a number of miles  away
\nfrom  Indore,  and was made to alight at  a  tourist’s\tbungalow.
\nThere  two  rooms  were\t engaged by  the  accused.,  Kamal  Singh
\noccupied  one of the two rooms and the girl was closeted  in  the
\nother  room with the appellant and his companion Punam, who  were
\nboth drunk.  One of the two youngmen caught hold of the hands  of
\nthe girl while the other tried to undress her with the object  of
\nraping\ther.   Kumari  Seema,  at  this\t point,\t feigned   sudden
\nindisposition so that the two youngmen had to bring her out  into
\nthe  gallery  for  fresh air.  She managed to  escape  while  the
\naccused went inside to fetch some water for her, She rushed  into
\nthe  house of one Babulal Kamdar and complained to him about  the
\nincident.   This  led to a communication of  information  of  the
\noffences to the Police which went to the tourist’s bungalow.  and
\narrested  the  three accused who were brought to  Police  Station
\nNalcha where a First Information Report was lodged.
\nThe Trial Court had examined the evidence given in support of the
\ncase  stated  above.   This  included  medical\tevidence  on  the
\nquestion  of the age of the girl, because, while the  prosecution
\nalleged\t that she was below 16 years of age, the accused  pleaded
\nthat  she was above 18 years of age.  Evidently, the case of  the
\naccused
\n837<\/span>
\nWas  that  Kumari Seema was a consenting party to  whatever  took
\nplace.\t Although the girl was attending a School, the\tentry  of
\nher  age in the School Register was not disclosed.  Despite  some
\ndiscrepancies  in the evidence relating to the age of  the  girl,
\nthe trial court came to the conclusion that it was between 16  to
\n19 years.  It relied mainly on expert evidence of Doctors who had
\nused the ossification test.\n<\/p>\n
The  Trial Court had also noticed the discrepancies  between  the
\nprosecution  version,  as set out above by Kumari  Seema  in  her
\nevidence  in Court. and the story given out by her in  the  First
\nlnformation  Report where she had stated that she had joined  the
\nparty  of  the\taccused at the crossing\t of  Bijasan  Road.   The
\nearlier version suggested that the girl had herself gone to  meet
\nthe party of the accused by appointment.\n<\/p>\n
The  consent of the girl was, however, immaterial in view of  the
\nfinding\t of the Trial Court about the age of the girl.\tThe  fact
\nthat  she  was taken to Mandow, where something happened  at  the
\ntourist’s bungalow which she disapproved of, was corroborated  by
\nthe  evidence of Babulal Kamdar, and Kailash Sharma, in\t addition
\nto the two police constables of Mandow-out-post.  The Trial Court
\nwhich  had the advantage, of watching the demeanour of the  girl,
\nhad come to the conclusion that, although the girl may have tried
\nto  improve  her version and pretend that she  was  unwilling  to
\naccompany  Kamal  Singh, who had come in a car for her\taccording
\nto the first version, yet, the charge under Sec. 366 I.P.C.,  was
\nestablished  against  each of the three accused\t and  the  charge
\nunder  Sec.  354  I.P.C. was  established  against  Shiv  Govind,
\nappellant,  and\t his companion Punam.  The  three  accused  were,
\ntherefore,  convicted under Sec. 366, and each was  sentenced  to
\none  year’s rigorous imprisonment.  The two accused  Shiv  Govind
\nand  Punam  were  also\tconvicted  under  Sec.\t354  I.P.C.,  and
\nsentenced  to  four  months rigorous imprisonment,  but\t the  two
\nsentences were ordered to run concurrently.
\nWhen  the case came up in appeal to the High Court, a notice:  of
\nenhancement  of the sentence under Sec. 366 I.P.C. was issued  to
\neach of the three appellants, and their sentences were\tenhanced,
\nas indicated above, after the appellants had been heard.
\nIt  is\tonly Shiv Govind who has appealed to  this  Court.   Shiv
\nGovind had also applied under Sec. 561A.  Criminal Procedure Code
\nto  the\t High  Court,  after the  dismissal  of\t his  appeal  and
\nenhancement  of\t the sentence, by the High  Court,  claiming  the
\nbenefit of Sec. 6 and 11 of the Probation of Offender’s Act.  But
\nthis  application  was\trejected by the\t learned  Judge\t who  had
\nenhanced the sentence passed upon the appellant, although he
\n838<\/span>
\nround that the report of the Probation Officer about the  conduct
\nof the accused while undergoing the sentence, which was sent far,
\nwas  favourable to the appellant.  It appears from the two  Judg-
\nments given by the learned Judge who enhanced the sentence of the
\nappellant  and who subsequently dismissed the application  Linder
\nSec.  561A Criminal Procedure Code also, that the view\ttaken  by
\nhim was that, having regard to the facts and circumstances and of
\nthe case and the offence committed by the appellant, the enhanced
\nsentence was deserved by him.\n<\/p>\n
We  have,  therefore,  examined the Judgment of\t the  High  Court
\nLinder appeal before us in order to discover the special  reasons
\nWhich induced the learned High Court Judge to differ from the  (-
\n)pinion\t of the Trial Court about the appropriate sentence to  be
\nimposed upon the appellant.  The only reason given by the learned
\nJudge  for  enhancing  the sentence was\t that  Kumari  Seema  had
\nreposed confidence in Kamal Singh, whom she regarded as an Uncle,
\nso  that  she could not expect foul play from him.   The  learned
\nJudge  thought\tthe girl’s trust and confidence\t in  Kamal  Singh
\nexplained  why she did not protest when she was taken in the  car
\nand  then made to get down at the tourist’s bungalow.  It  seems,
\nhowever, from the account of the occurrence given in the Judgment
\nunder  appeal, that the- learned Judge was shocked by the  plight
\nof  Kumari  Seema, due to the perfidy of Kamal Singh, and  by.\ta
\ncontemplation of the possible consequences to her if she had  not
\nbehaved in a particularly. brave and intelligent manner so as  to
\nescape\tfrom her predicament.  The learned Judge  mentioned  that
\nthe  girl had risked her life to escape.  We, however, find  that
\nthere was no suggestion in the evidence anywhere that any  threat
\nto the life of Kumari Seema was held out.  There was no\t evidence
\nthat  the  girl had seriously struggled to escape or  had  raised
\nshouts\tfor  help which would have brought people around  to  her
\naid.   Nor  was\t there any evidence that  the  accused\ttried  to
\nobstruct her or to chase her when she escaped from the\ttourist’s
\nbungalow allegedly by resorting to a ruse.  The High Court was so
\nimpressed  by  the  girl’s  uncorroborated  version  of\t her  own
\nheroism, which did not tally with her first version in the  First
\nInformation  Report,  that it overlooked the infirmities  in  the
\ngirl’s evidence discussed by the trial court.  We find the  trial
\ncourt’s\t view  of  the\twhole case  to\tbe,  quite  balanced  and
\nobjective.   We\t do not think that-the severer view of\tthe  High
\nCourt could be reasonably justified.\n<\/p>\n
It  seems  clear  to us that the High Court  had  overlooked  the
\nprinciples, laid down by this Court repeatedly, which should
\n839<\/span>
\ngovern\tthe exercise of powers of the High Court to enhance  sen-
\ntences Imposed by trial courts.\t In Bed Raj v. The State of Uttar
\nPradesh.<\/a> this Court observed at page 588-589
\n\t      “A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion
\n\t      and  it  is well settled that when  discretion  has
\n\t      been  properly  exercised along  accepted\t judicial
\n\t      lines,  an appellate court should not interfere  to
\n\t      the detriment of an accused person except for  very
\n\t      strong reasons which must be disclosed on the  face
\n\t      of  the judgment; See for example the  observations
\n\t      in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a> (1954 S.C.R. 146,\n<\/p>\n
\t      156)  and\t Nar  Singh v.\tState  of  Uttar  Pradesh<\/a>
\n\t      [1955](1)\t S.C.R.\t 238,  2411.   In  a  matter   of
\n\t      enhancement  there should not be interference  when
\n\t      the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment.
\n\t      Interference   is\t only  called  for  when  it   is
\n\t      manifestly  inadequate.In\t our  opinion,\tthe  lese
\n\t      principles   have\t  not  been  observed.\t  It   is
\n\t      impossible  to hold in the circumstances\tdescribed
\n\t      that  the\t Sessions Judge did not\t impose\t a  subs-
\n\t      tantial  sentence, and no adequate reason has  been
\n\t      assigned\tby  the\t learned High  Court  Judges  for
\n\t      considering the sentence manifestly inadequate.  In
\n\t      the  circumstances. bearing all the  considerations
\n\t      of  this case in mind, we are of opinion\tthat  the
\n\t      appeal  (which  is  limited  to  the  question   of
\n\t      sentence)\t should be allowed and that the\t sentence
\n\t      imposed  by the High Court should be set aside  and
\n\t      that of the Sessions Court restored”.\n<\/p>\n
We think that what was laid down by this Court. in Bed Raj’s case
\n(Supra)\t is fully applicable to the case before us.  We may  also
\nmention the similar views expressed by this Court in.  Alamgir\t&
\nA nr., v.  The State of Bihar (2).\n<\/p>\n
We  may observe that decision of this Court in Nabi Bux and  Ors.
\nv.  The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a>(:’), is distinguishable from  the
\ncase  before  us.   In that case the High Court\t had  enhanced\ta
\nsentence  having  regard  to  all  the\tfacts  and  circumstances
\njustifying  the enhancement.  In the case before us we find  that
\nthe High Court had not noticed a number of facts duly  considered
\nby  the trial Court so that the exercise of power of  enhancement
\nof  the\t sentence under Sec. 366 I.P.C. could not  be  reasonably
\njustified here.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, we allow this appeal by setting aside the order  of
\nenhancement  of sentence by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  and
\nrestore the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment
\n(1) [1955] (2) S.C.R. p. 583.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1959] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 464.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. [1972] S.C. 495.\n<\/p>\n
840<\/span><\/p>\n
passed\tupon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge for  the
\noffence under Sec. 366 I.P.C. of which the appellant was convict-
\ned. The concurrent sentence of four months rigorous  imprisonment
\nunder Sec. 354 I.P.C., which was not interfered with by the  High
\nCourt,\tis  maintained.\t  We understand that  the  appellant  has
\nalready\t undergone more than one year’s imprisonment  awarded  to
\nhim  and  that\the is in jail as his  application  for\tbail  was
\nrejected.   If\tthis  is  so,  the  appellant  will  be\t released
\nforthwith unless wanted in some other case.\n<\/p>\n
K.B.N.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
841<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1823, 1972 SCR (3) 835 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: SHIV GOVIND Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/03\/1972 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH GROVER, […]<\/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-3031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - 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\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T11:09:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T11:09:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2092,\"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\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\",\"name\":\"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T11:09:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - 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\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T11:09:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972","datePublished":"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T11:09:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972"},"wordCount":2092,"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\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972","name":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T11:09:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiv-govind-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-march-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiv Govind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 1972"}]},{"@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\/3031","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=3031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}