{"id":32667,"date":"2008-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-25T03:09:02","modified_gmt":"2017-07-24T21:39:02","slug":"begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/89719\/1997\t 14\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 897 of 1997\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nBEGADIYA\nSOMABHAI KALABHAI & 3 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMC BAROT for Appellant(s) : 1 - 4. \nMS MEETA\nPANCHAL for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\tDate\n: 14\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\nappellants   convicts  have challenged the judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence  rendered on 30-8-1997 by learned Addl.
\nSessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Sessions Case No.45 of
\n1995  convicting the appellants for offences punishable u\/ss. 302,
\n323, 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code and u\/s 135 of the
\nBombay Police Act and sentenced them to undergo different sentences.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIt was
\nthe prosecution case that on 4-11-1994 at about 15-00 hours in
\nfurtherance of their common intention to commit murder of  Anada
\nRatna, appellant Kala Kaala and Kaala Ratna committed  his murder and
\nappellant  Soma Kaala and appellant Vira Kaala caused injury with
\nstick having iron rings to  Nopabhai Ratnabhai and  Chandubhai
\nBhemabhai and appellant Kala Kaala  and appellant  Kaala Ratna
\nabetted the accused  in commission of offence and thereby  committed
\noffences punishable u\/s 302, 323, 324 and 34 of the I.P. Code and u\/s
\n135 of the Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tOn the
\nbasis of the first information  report lodged by Nopabhai Ratnabhai
\nbefore Danta Police Station, offence was registered as I   CR No.
\n107 of 1994  against the accused  and the investigation was started.
\nOn completion of investigation charge sheet against the accused for
\nthe aforesaid offences was laid before the J.M.F.C., Danta. As the
\noffences were triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to
\nthe Sessions Case, Banaskantha at Palanpur and it  was registered as
\nSessions Case No. 45 of 2005. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
\nBanaskantha at Palanpur framed charge Exh.3 against the accused for
\nthe aforesaid offences. On completion  of recording of evidence, the
\nlearned trial Judge  explained to the accused the incriminating
\ncircumstances  appearing against them in the evidence. The accused
\ndenied having committed the offence in their further statements
\nrecorded u\/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and  stated that
\nthey have been falsely implicated in the offence.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAfter
\nhearing the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned advocate for the
\naccused, the trial Court convicted  the appellants and sentenced them
\nto undergo difference sentences. Being aggrieved  by the said
\ndecision,  the accused have preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr. M.C. Barot for the appellants and learned A.P.P.
\nMs. Meeta Panchal for the respondent   State at length and in great
\ndetail. We have also perused the impugned judgment and records and
\nproceeding and proceedings of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Barot learned advocate for the appellants mainly submitted that  the
\nprosecution witnesses have tried to suppress the real facts and there
\nare material contradictions in the evidence of the so called eye
\nwitnesses. He also submitted that the incident occurred all of a
\nsudden as there was  heated  exchange of words which resulted into
\nclash and there was no premeditation  or pre-plan  to commit offence
\nand therefore the appellants could be convicted for minor offence.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned
\nA.P.P. Ms. Panchal submitted that the evidence clearly indicates that
\nthe appellants had common intention to commit offence and there was
\npremeditation. The medical evidence as well as depositions of the
\nwitnesses indicate that all the appellants with common intention to
\ncommit offence attacked deceased and therefore the learned trial
\nJudge was justified in recording conviction. Hence,  no interference
\nis warranted in the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn view
\nof  submissions of Mr. Barot, appellants have not disputed the
\nincident. Therefore, the only question  is whether the case would
\nfall under Section 304 of the I.P. Code ?\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nappears from the prosecution case that appellants  Kala Kaala  and
\nKaala Ratna  committed murder of Anadabhai Begadiya and appellant
\nSoma Kaala and appellant  Vira Kaala  abetted.  It is also the
\nprosecution case that  appellants Soma Kaala  and Vira Kaala caused
\ninjury with stick to Nopabhai Ratna and Chandubhai Bhemabhai and
\nother appellants abetted in commission of offence.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe
\nprosecution examined  injured P.W.  2  Nopabhai at  Exh 18. This
\nwitness  lodged F.I.R. Exh. 39. It appears from the evidence of  this
\nwitness that  the witness had heated exchange of words with appellant
\nSoma Kaala  as he demanded money. The evidence also indicates that
\non account of  heated  exchange of words other appellants  came
\nrunning  there and appellants Soma Kaala and Kala Kaala had bow  and
\narrow, appellants Kaala Ratna and Vira Kaala  had stick having iron
\nrings and appellant Soma  Kaala  hit  arrow on  right side of his
\nforehead.  According to the witness appellant Vira Kaala hit stick
\nhaving iron rings on  his right wrist and backside of his head.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\nprosecution  produced the injury certificate of the witness at Exh.\n<\/p>\n
14. It indicates the following injuries. :\n<\/p>\n
i.\tIncised
\nwound oblique 2.5 cm x \u00bd cm x \u00bd over right side of
\nforehead.\n<\/p>\n
ii.\tC.L.W.\n<\/p>\n
Vertical 1 cm x \u00bd cm x \u00bd cm over right forearm.\n<\/p>\n
According
\nto the certificate  injury No.1 was possible by sharp cutting
\ninstrument and injury No. 2 was possible by hard and blunt object.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nF.I.R. Exh. 39 also indicates  that before the incident heated
\nexchange of words took place and the appellants Soma Kaala and Vira
\nKaala  assaulted  P.W. 2 Nopabhai.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\nevidence indicates that  there was exchange of words between P.W. 2
\nand  appellant Soma Kaala who hit arrow on his forehead and appellant
\nVira Kaala, hit stick on his right wrist. The Doctor’s evidence
\nindicates that  such injuries were possible by arrow and stick. This
\nclearly indicates that  on account of heated exchange of words the
\nincident occurred and the witness was injured.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAccording
\nto  P.W. 3 Chandubhai Bhemabhai  Exh. 25 he  was also injured in the
\nassault by appellant Soma Kaala but there is no medical evidence  to
\nshow the injuries. Therefore,  it is difficult to believe that  the
\nwitness was injured in the assault.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\nprosecution also  examined eye-witness P.W. 4 Kamliben Anadabhai  at
\nExh. 26. The witness has deposed about  the injuries to P.W. 2
\nNopabhai  and P.W. 3 Chandubhai.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn view
\nof above evidence, it clearly emerges that the incident occurred  as
\nP.W. 2 demanded money from  appellant Soma  Kaala and  there was
\nexchange of words and due to this heated  exchange of words,
\nappellant Soma Kaala got enraged and inflicted injury   and
\nappellant Vira Kaala  also gave stick blow  to P.W. 2. Therefore
\ncomplicity of appellant Soma Kaala  and appellant Vira Kaala is
\nproved beyond reasonable doubt in causing injury to P.W. 2 but the
\nevidence does not indicate that they had abetted appellants Kala
\nKaala and Kaala Ratna in committing  murder of Anada Ratna. As
\nregards appellant Kaala Ratna, according to P.W. 2 he hit stick on
\nthe head of deceased Anada Ratna. This version is supported by P.W.\n<\/p>\n
4. The postmortem report  Exh. 15 also indicates that injury was
\nfound  on head  of the deceased and P.W. 1  Dr. Jayantibhai Ambaram
\nExh. 13 has deposed that such injury was possible by stick.
\nTherefore,  involvement of  appellant Kaala Ratna in causing injury
\nto deceased is proved but there is no evidence to indicate  that
\nappellant  Kaala Ratna had common intention to  commit murder of the
\ndeceased. Analysing the evidence, it becomes clear  that appellants
\nSoma Kaala and Vira Kaala caused injuries to P.W. 2 and appellant
\nKaala Ratna caused injury to the decease but there is no evidence to
\ncome to a conclusion  that these appellants  had common intention to
\ncommit murder or to cause injury to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tAs
\nregards death of Anada Ratna, the prosecution examined Medical
\nOfficer   P.W. 1  Dr. Jayantibhai Ambaram Patel at Exh. 13. The
\nwitness  performed postmortem of  dead body of Anada Ratna. According
\nto him  the injuries found on the dead body were recorded  in
\npostmortem report Exh. 15 and certificate indicating cause of  death
\nproduced at Exh. 16 was issued by him. According to the Doctor,
\ninjury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
\ndeath and such injury was possible by muddamal arrow.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tPostmortem
\nExh. 15 indicates  following  external injuries in Column No.17.\n<\/p>\n
i.\tStabbing
\nwound oblique 2.5 cm x 1 cm size over right  of epigastric region.
\nOmentum came out side through wound.\n<\/p>\n
ii.\tC.L.Ws.\n<\/p>\n
 3 in no. oblique, 1 cm x \u00bd cm x \u00bd on left side  of
\nparietal region of scalp.\n<\/p>\n
iii.\n<\/p>\n
C.L.W.  Oblique 2.5 cm x \u00bd cm x \u00bd cm over left
\ntemporal region of scalp.\n<\/p>\n
iv.\tAbrasions
\n 3 in no. of 1 cm size  over left knee.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe cause
\nof death was shock due to intraperitoneal haemorrhage on account of
\nstabbing injury over abdomen.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tAs
\nobserved earlier P.W. 2, P.W. 3  and P.W. 4 have deposed  that as
\nP.W. 2 demanded money from appellant  Soma Kaala, there was heated
\nexchange of words. They have also deposed that  as deceased  Anada
\nRatna came running there appellant Kala Kaala hit arrow on his
\nabdomen. The medical evidence also indicates that such injury was the
\ncause of death. Therefore,   the death was homicidal in nature and
\nappellant Kala Kaala was responsible for such injury. It also appears
\nthat  the deceased was not present  at the place of incident when
\nthere was exchange of words but came subsequently. Therefore there
\nwas no premeditation and there was no intention on the part of
\nappellant Kala Kaala to assault the deceased.  The incident  occurred
\n all of a sudden in heat of passion.  Considering the injury caused
\nby the appellant, it cannot be said that  he acted in cruel or
\nunusual manner and took undue advantage of the situation. Therefore,
\nthe case would  fall into exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P. Code
\nand hence learned trial Judge committed  error in convicting
\nappellant  Kala Kaala for the offence punishable u\/s 302 of the I.P.
\nCode.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tScrutinising
\n the evidence it appears  that   there is no cogent, reliable and
\nconvincing  evidence to indicate that the appellants had  common
\nintention to  cause injury to P.W. 2 and in furtherance of  common
\nintention, they attacked P.W. 2. Considering  nature of injuries and
\nweapons used for inflicting  the injuries   appellant Soma  Kaala,
\nVira  Kaala and  Kaala Ratna could be convicted for the offence
\npunishable u\/s 324 of the I.P. Code. Therefore, learned trial Judge
\nhas committed  error in convicting appellants No.1, 2 and 4  for the
\noffence punishable u\/s 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code
\nand hence conviction of these appellants for such offences is
\nrequired to be set aside and  their conviction for the offence
\npunishable u\/s 324 of the I.P. Code and u\/s 135 of the Bombay Police
\nAct is required to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t As
\nregards murder of Anada, there is no evidence to indicate that there
\nwas common intention of  the appellants to commit his  murder.
\nTherefore, it cannot be  said that the appellants in furtherance of
\ntheir common intention   caused murder of Anada.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tNow the
\nCourt will have to find out  whether the  appellant Kala Kaala could
\nbe held guilty for the offence of murder or  whether it falls within
\nthe ambit of any exception enumerated in Section 300 of the I.P.
\nCode.  It appears   that there was quarrel preceding the incident and
\nthe deceased  tried to intervene in the quarrel. Therefore,  the
\nmanner  in which incident has  occurred and considering  the medical
\nevidence  it appears that the murder was committed without
\npremeditation in a sudden heat of passion. Therefore, in our
\nconsidered view, the present case would be governed  by Section 304
\nPart   I of the I.P. Code more particularly when  only one blow was
\ngiven by appellant Kala Kaala. Therefore, approach of the learned
\ntrial Judge being erroneous in law is liable to be quashed and set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tHaving
\nregard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
\nmanner in which the incident has taken place, appellant Kala Kaala
\ncould be held guilty of offence punishable u\/s 304 Part-I   and not
\nu\/s 302 of the I.P. Code.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tWe have
\nheard learned advocate Mr. Barot for the appellants and learned
\nA.P.P. Ms. Panchal for the respondent   State on the question of
\nsentence. It is stated that appellant Kala Kaala has undergone
\nimprisonment of more than 10 years and other appellants were released
\non bail by this Court pending  the appeal. It is also submitted by
\nMr. Barot that  the manner  in which the  incident  had occurred, it
\nwould be just and proper   that imprisonment already undergone by
\nthem be imposed.  In our view, considering  the facts and
\ncircumstances  of the case this submission is required to be
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and conviction of
\n the appellants Begadiya Soma Kaala, Begadiya Virabhai Kaala and
\nBegadiya Kaala Ratnabhai recorded  vide  judgment and order  dated
\n30 8-1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha
\nat Palanpur   in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1995 for the offence
\npunishable u\/s  302, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P. Code  is
\nquashed and set aside. However, conviction  of these appellants for
\nthe offence punishable u\/s 324 of the I.P. Code and u\/s  135 of the
\nBombay Police Act is confirmed. These appellants are directed to
\nundergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment  for the period already
\nundergone by them.  Appellants No.1, 2 and 4  are   on bail  and
\nhence their   bail bonds   stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
26.1\t\tSo
\nfar as conviction of  the appellant Begadiya Kala Kaala    recorded
\nvide   judgment and order  dated 30-8-1997 passed by the learned
\nAddl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur   in Sessions Case No.
\n45 of 1995 for the offence punishable u\/s 302 is concerned,  it is
\naltered from Section 302 of the I.P. Code to Section 304 Part-I of
\nthe I.P. Code  and the appellant  is directed to undergo sentence of
\nrigorous imprisonment for the period of 10  (Ten) years. Order of
\nconviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence
\npunishable u\/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act is confirmed.  However,
\nconviction of this appellant for the offence punishable u\/s 323, 324
\nread with  34 of the I.P. Code is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
26.2\t\tIn
\nview of the jail report, it appears that  appellant No. 3 –  Begadiya
\nKala Kaala  has already undergone sentence of rigorous imprisonment
\nimposed by this Court. Therefore, the Superintendent, Ahmedabad
\nCentral Jail, Ahmedabad is directed to  set free appellant No.3
\nBegadiya Kala Kaala forthwith  unless his presence is  required in
\nany other case.\n<\/p>\n
26.3\t\tAll
\nthe sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellants are
\nentitled to get set off.\n<\/p>\n
26.4\t\tThe muddamal be disposed of
\nas directed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Bhagwati Prasad, J.)\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Bankim N. Mehta,J.)<\/p>\n
\/JVSatwara\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/89719\/1997 14\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 897 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBegadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - 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\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2397,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - 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\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008"},"wordCount":2397,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008","name":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-24T21:39:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/begadiya-vs-the-on-14-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Begadiya vs The on 14 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/32667","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=32667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}