{"id":32822,"date":"2010-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-22T12:03:35","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T06:33:35","slug":"sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                     W.P. (S) No. 2620 of 2004\n                                                ---\n        Sajda Khatoon                                                              Petitioner\n                                               Versus\n        1.  The State of Jharkhand\n        2.  Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi\n        3.  Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi\n        4.  Inspector General of Police (Prison), State of Jharkhand, Ranchi\n        5.  Superintendent of Police, Simdega\n        6.   Deputy Commissioner, Simdega\n        7.  Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Simdega\n        8.  Chief Medical Officer, Sub Divisional Hospital, Simdega\n            Respondents\n                                                 ---\n        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK\n                                                 ---\n        For the Petitioner:    Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. G.S. Prasad, Advocate\n        For the Respondents: Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, SC (Mines)\n                                                 ---\n                                           CAV ORDER\n                                                 ---\n        Reserved On: 31.03.2010                                  Pronounced On: 23.04.2010\n                                                 ---\n12. 23.04.2010<\/pre>\n<p>         The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the<br \/>\n        respondents to pay adequate compensation to her for the alleged custodial death of her<br \/>\n        husband which had occurred while the deceased was under custody at the sub-jail,<br \/>\n        Simdega.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The undisputed facts of the case in brief are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                The deceased Md. Shamim had sustained injuries on his body as a result of<br \/>\n        alleged assault made on him by one Md. Rafique, a resident of same mohalla as that of<br \/>\n        the deceased. In respect of this incident which had occurred on 4.7.2003, a first<br \/>\n        information report was lodged at the police station. The victim was removed to Sadar<br \/>\n        Hospital, Simdega where he was given initial treatment, but later, upon being referred by<br \/>\n        the attending doctor at the Sadar Hospital, Simdega, he was removed to the RIMS,<br \/>\n        Ranchi.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      After undergoing treatment and upon being cured, he was remanded to judicial<br \/>\n        custody at sub-jail, Simdega on 13.8.2003. On 22.8.2003, the doctor at the sub-jail,<br \/>\n        Simdega had examined him and found him to be suffering from Jaundice as appearing<br \/>\n        from the entries made in the jail hospital register. The doctor had prescribed few<br \/>\n        medicines and had purportedly advised the jail authorities to remove the patient to the<br \/>\n        Sadar Hospital on the next day.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      However, in the early hours of 23.08.2003, finding his condition serious, the jail<br \/>\n        authorities took him to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      Death of the prisoner caused widespread resentment not only amongst the<br \/>\n        members of the family of the deceased, but also in the town. Considering the matter<br \/>\n        serious, the Deputy Commissioner of the district directed for an inquest on the dead<br \/>\n body of the deceased to be conducted by an Executive Magistrate and had also directed<br \/>\nthe Executive Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for ascertaining the cause of death of the<br \/>\ndeceased. A medical Board comprising of three doctors was constituted for conducting<br \/>\nautopsy on the dead body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The postmortem report declared that the cause of death of the deceased was on<br \/>\naccount of rupture of his spleen and such injury could have been caused on account of<br \/>\nviolence or even due to fall.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     Alleging that her husband was subjected to custodial violence, which had resulted<br \/>\nin the death of the victim, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased prisoner,<br \/>\naccused the jail authorities for having caused the death of her husband by assaulting the<br \/>\nvictim at the behest of the accused in the criminal case namely, Md. Rafique.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      The Deputy Commissioner of the district released and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000\/-<br \/>\nby way of compensation to the petitioner. However, not being satisfied with the amount,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has filed the present writ application for directing the respondent State<br \/>\nauthorities to pay her a reasonable and adequate compensation commensurate with the<br \/>\nearnings of the deceased as he was by profession a tailor and used to earn between Rs.<br \/>\n4000-5000 per month and that, at the time of his death, he was only 35 years of age and<br \/>\nbesides the petitioner being the widow of the deceased, there were altogether six more<br \/>\ndependants including the old mother of the deceased and five minor children.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     Two separate sets of counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents. One, by the respondent no. 5 namely, the Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\nSimdega and other by the respondent no. 7 namely, Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail,<br \/>\nSimdega. As it appears from the statement contained in the counter-affidavits, a common<br \/>\nstand has been taken by both the respondents, that admittedly, the deceased had suffered<br \/>\nbodily injury at the hands of the accused of the criminal case and for the treatment of the<br \/>\ninjury, the deceased was admitted to the hospital in between the date of occurrence i.e.<br \/>\n4.7.2003 till 13.8.2003. The deceased was not fully cured and used to frequently<br \/>\ncomplain of illness and he used to be regularly attended by the jail doctor. On 22.8.2003,<br \/>\nthe jail doctor had examined the deceased and had advised the jail authorities to admit<br \/>\nhim to the Sadar Hospital in the morning of the next day, but in the night of 23.08.2003,<br \/>\nthe deceased fell seriously ill and was promptly removed to the hospital at about 2.30<br \/>\nAM, but he died in course of treatment. Denying the petitioner&#8217;s claim of the death of the<br \/>\ndeceased being due to custodial violence, the explanation offered by the respondents is<br \/>\nthat on account of the violence which he had suffered at the hands of the accused in the<br \/>\ncriminal case, the spleen of the deceased was enlarged and as confirmed by the<br \/>\npostmortem report, the death was on account of rupture of the spleen. As such, it was a<br \/>\ncase of natural death and not on account of custodial violence. The respondents have thus<br \/>\nsought to deny their liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner, refusing to<br \/>\nacknowledge their responsibility for the death of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondent Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\nSimdega as also that of the respondent Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Simdega, it is<br \/>\nacknowledged that the petitioner was paid compensation of Rs. 10,000\/- for the death of<br \/>\nher husband.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the<br \/>\ndocuments on record. There appears four significant documents essential for<br \/>\nconsideration. The first document is a photocopy of the extracts of the jail hospital<br \/>\nregister pertaining to the medical treatment of the deceased on 22.8.2003. The<br \/>\nendorsement in the register made by the attending doctor indicates that the doctor had<br \/>\nprescribed few medicines including liver tonic and B. complex tablets. As it appears, the<br \/>\nprescription has been written and signed by the doctor in English, but on the margin of<br \/>\nthe page, there appears a purported advice of the doctor for admitting the patient to the<br \/>\nhospital on the next day, written in Hindi and in a different handwriting. The respondents<br \/>\nhave not given a specific or definite statement identifying the author of the Hindi<br \/>\nwritings made in the register. Be that as it may, as per the prescription, it appears that the<br \/>\ndoctor did not find the patient to be suffering from any serious ailment save and except<br \/>\nfrom liver problem.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The second document is the inquest report prepared by the Executive Magistrate<br \/>\non the dead body of the deceased on 23.08.2003, reference to which has been made in<br \/>\npara-16 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent no. 8 and annexed as annexure-C. It<br \/>\nappears from the endorsement made by the Magistrate in the column pertaining to the<br \/>\napparent cause of death, the Magistrate had opined that the death appears to have been<br \/>\ncaused due to assault.\n<\/p>\n<p>       On comparison of the two documents, it appears that on 22.8.2003 when the<br \/>\ndoctor had examined the prisoner, he did not find any external injury on the body of the<br \/>\nprisoner. Though the Magistrate has not recorded any final and definite opinion, but the<br \/>\nopinion which he has recorded on examination of the dead body of the deceased does not<br \/>\nsuggest that the death of the prisoner was a case of natural death.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The third document which is of relevance, is the postmortem report (Annexure-B<br \/>\nto the counter-affidavit of the respondent no. 7). The postmortem examination was<br \/>\nconducted in the afternoon of 23.08.2003. The doctors conducting autopsy did not find<br \/>\nany external injury on the body of the deceased and the only injury which they had found<br \/>\nwas rupture of the spleen, which in their opinion, was the cause of death.\n<\/p>\n<p>       It appears that taking cue from the opinion expressed regarding the cause of death<br \/>\nof the deceased, the respondents have wanted to explain that the rupture of the spleen<br \/>\nwas either on account of the injury which the deceased had sustained at the hands of the<br \/>\naccused in the criminal case on 4.7.2003, or on account of fall which the deceased may<br \/>\nhave suffered. These suggestions are not supported by any independent and firm basis.<br \/>\nRather, the medical register of the jail hospital and the postmortem report contradict<br \/>\n these suggestions of the respondents. As observed above, upon his examining the patient<br \/>\non 22.8.2003, the doctor had not found any external injury on the body of the patient, nor<br \/>\ndid he find any palpable inflamation of the spleen and according to his diagnosis, the<br \/>\npatient was suffering from jaundice.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The next relevant and significant document is the Inquiry Report of the Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate dated 14.10.2003 (Annexure-F). On going through the report, it appears that<br \/>\nthe Magistrate had conducted a detailed inquiry by examining the witnesses including the<br \/>\njail authorities as also some of the jail inmates and had also perused the relevant<br \/>\ndocuments including the jail hospital register. This Inquiry had revealed some glaring<br \/>\nfacts and notable amongst which are,<br \/>\n                                   i. that the deceased was examined by the jail doctor on<br \/>\n                                       22.8.2003 and upon examination, the jail doctor had<br \/>\n                                       advised the jail authority to admit the patient to the<br \/>\n                                       Sadar Hospital on the next day.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   ii. The jail doctor who was also the Medical Officer of<br \/>\n                                       the Sadar Hospital, Simdega and the Jail authorities<br \/>\n                                       blame each other for the death of the prisoner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   iii. the patient was removed to the hospital in the early<br \/>\n                                       hours of 23.8.2003 at about 2.40 PM, but no doctor<br \/>\n                                       was available at the hospital. Later, the doctor who<br \/>\n                                       examined the patient, had declared the patient to be<br \/>\n                                       brought dead.\n<\/p>\n<p>       At the conclusion of his inquiry, the Magistrate has recorded his finding that<br \/>\nwhile the jail administration has tried to shift the blame for the death of the deceased on<br \/>\nthe jail doctor, the jail doctor has been trying to shift the blame on the jail authorities. In<br \/>\nthe opinion of the Magistrate, death of the deceased had occurred on account of the<br \/>\nnegligence of the jail doctor.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.    It is obvious that on the basis of the Inquiry Report submitted by the<br \/>\nExecutive Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner of the district had acknowledged that<br \/>\nthe death of the prisoner while in judicial custody, had occurred on account of<br \/>\nnegligence of the concerned officials including the jail doctor and upon such<br \/>\nacknowledgment of fact, the compensation amount to the extent of Rs. 10,000\/- was<br \/>\nreleased and paid by the Deputy Commissioner to the widow of the deceased namely, the<br \/>\npresent petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.    The facts on careful analysis, amply demonstrate that the death of the under<br \/>\ntrial prisoner while in jail custody, had occurred on account of gross negligenc and<br \/>\nlapses on the part of the concerned authorities of the sub-jail, Simdega. Under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the State Government cannot therefore disown its liability for the acts and<br \/>\nomissions on the part of its servants which had resulted in the premature death of the<br \/>\n       deceased. Such liability appears to have been already acknowledged by the Deputy<br \/>\n      Commissioner who       had made prompt payment of the sum of Rs. 10,000\/- within the<br \/>\n      limit of his financial powers by way of compensation to the widow of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>       12.    The petitioner in her supplementary affidavit, has declared that the deceased who<br \/>\n       was aged 35 years at the time of his death, was a tailor by profession and used to earn in<br \/>\n       between Rs. 4000-5000\/- per month and besides the petitioner being the surviving<br \/>\n        widow of the deceased, there are five minor children and widowed mother of the<br \/>\n       deceased and all of whom were dependants upon the earnings of the deceased. These<br \/>\n       statements have not been denied or disputed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13.     Considering the above facts, the State Government is liable to pay a<br \/>\n      reasonable amount of compensation for the premature death of the deceased husband of<br \/>\n      the petitioner and considering the earnings of the deceased and dependency of the<br \/>\n      surviving members of his family, in my opinion, the dependant surviving members<br \/>\n      of the deceased do deserve a compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs as a reasonable<br \/>\n      compensation for the death of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>      14.     Accordingly, I direct the respondent State Government to pay to the<br \/>\n      petitioner a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs by way of compensation to her, within one month from<br \/>\n      the date of receipt \/ production of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      15.     With the above observations and directions, this writ application is<br \/>\n      disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                          (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)<\/p>\n<p>Ranjeet\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2620 of 2004 &#8212; Sajda Khatoon Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Home Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Inspector [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-22T06:33:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T06:33:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2042,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-22T06:33:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-22T06:33:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T06:33:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010"},"wordCount":2042,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010","name":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-22T06:33:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajda-khatoon-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sajda Khatoon vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 23 April, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/32822","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=32822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}