{"id":34262,"date":"2007-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-21T07:38:30","modified_gmt":"2015-03-21T02:08:30","slug":"abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  214 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nAbbas Ali\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Rajasthan\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4284 of 2006)<\/p>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the
\nRajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.  By the impugned judgment
\nthe High Court upheld the judgment of Learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, Bhilwara holding  the appellant guilty of
\noffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentencing him  to undergo
\nimprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tFirst information report (in short the ‘FIR’) was lodged by
\nDuda Ram (PW-5) on 15.11.2001.  According to the FIR, the
\ninformant was a Chowkidar for Chirag Travel Agency.  At
\nabout 12 midnight, he saw a body on the railway overbridge.
\nA bearded man was pelting stones, he closed the doors of the
\noffice and went inside.  After sometime, when he opened the
\ndoor, he saw that there was a dead body lying.  Seeing this, a
\nreport was lodged with Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara
\nwhere a Case No. 501\/2001 was registered. Recovery was
\nmade of the knife on the basis of disclosure made by the
\naccused. After registration of the case, investigation was
\nconducted and after investigation, charge sheet was filed
\nagainst the accused.  The case was committed to the trial
\ncourt.  The trial court framed the charges against the accused
\npersons for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.  The
\naccused denied the charge and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
Placing reliance on evidence of Neela Bai (PW-9), the wife
\nof the deceased, the trial court held the accused guilty.  The
\nHigh Court also found the evidence of this eye witness to be
\nreliable and dismissed the appeal by impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
With reference to certain observations made by the trial
\ncourt learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial
\ncourt found that it was impossible that the accused who
\nhimself is  lame and travels on a tricycle could take PW9 to his
\njhuggi  a place far from place of incident and therefore the
\nevidence of PW-9 cannot be believed. She had herself accepted
\nthat earlier she was married to the accused and later on stated
\nliving with the deceased. The informant (PW-5) resiled from his
\nstatement recorded during investigation.  Ultimately it was
\nsubmitted that only one blow was given and therefore Section
\n302 IPC has no application.\n<\/p>\n
Per contra learned counsel for the State supported the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Evidence of PW-9 is to the effect that in the night she and
\nthe deceased were sleeping under a neem tree by the side of
\nthe railway track. Suddenly the accused came there, stabbed
\nthe deceased and forcibly took her to his jhuggi. She accepted
\nthat the distance was considerable. She had lost her senses
\nafter seeing the accused stab the deceased. She accepted that
\nthe accused was physically disabled and normally moved in a
\ntricycle. She clarified that since deceased was sleeping he
\ncould not escape from the stab blow.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate
\nprovision to be applied.  In the scheme of the IPC culpable
\nhomicide is the genus and ‘murder’ its specie.  All ‘murder’ is
\n‘culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally,
\n‘culpable homicide’ sans special characteristics of murder is
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder’. For the purpose
\nof fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the
\ngeneric offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of
\nculpable homicide.  The first is, what may be called, ‘culpable
\nhomicide of the first degree’. This is the gravest form of
\nculpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as
\n‘murder’.  The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of
\nthe second degree’.  This is punishable under the first part of
\nSection 304. Then, there is ‘culpable homicide of the third
\ndegree’.  This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the
\npunishment provided for it is also the lowest among the
\npunishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide
\nof this degree is punishable under the second part of Section\n<\/p>\n
304.<\/p>\n
The academic distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable
\nhomicide not amounting to murder’ has always vexed the
\nCourts.  The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the
\ntrue scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in
\nthese sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute
\nabstractions.  The safest way of approach to the interpretation
\nand application of these provisions seems to be to keep in
\nfocus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections
\n299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in
\nappreciating the points of distinction between the two offences.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSection 299\t\t\t\t\t\tSection 300<\/p>\n
A person commits culpable homicide\t\t\tSubject to certain exceptions
\nif the act by which the death is\t\t\tculpable homicide is murder
\ncaused is done \t\t\t\t\tif the act by which the
\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\tdeath is caused is done –<\/p>\n
\n\nINTENTION\n\n(a) with the intention of causing  \t\t(1) with the intention of \n    death; or\t\t\t\t\tcausing death; or\n\n<\/pre>\n
(b) with the intention of causing \t\t(2) with the intention of
\n    such bodily injury as is likely  \t\tcausing such bodily injury
\n\t to cause death; or \t\t\tas the offender knows to be
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlikely to cause the death of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe person to whom the harm
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis caused; or<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(3) With the intention of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcausing bodily injury to any
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tperson and the bodily injury
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tintended to be inflicted
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tis sufficient in the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tordinary course of nature
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tto cause death; or<\/p>\n
KNOWLEDGE
\n****<\/p>\n
(c) with the knowledge that the act      (4) with the knowledge that
\n\t is likely to cause death.\t\t  the act is so imminently
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t dangerous that it must in all
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t probability cause death or
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t such bodily injury as is
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t likely to cause death, and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t without any excuse for
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t incurring the risk of causing
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t death or such injury as is
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2)
\nand (3) of Section 300.  The distinguishing feature of the mens
\nrea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by
\nthe offender regarding the particular victim being in such a
\npeculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm
\ncaused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact
\nthat such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be
\nsufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or
\ncondition.  It is noteworthy that the ‘intention to cause death’
\nis not an essential requirement of clause (2).  Only the
\nintention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the
\noffender’s knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing
\nthe death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the
\nkilling within the ambit of this clause.  This aspect of clause
\n(2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such
\nknowledge on the part of the offender.  Instances of cases
\nfalling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the
\nassailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given
\nknowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or
\nenlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to
\ncause death of that particular person as a result of the
\nrupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the
\ncase may be.  If the assailant had no such knowledge about
\nthe disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to
\ncause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course
\nof nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even
\nif the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given.
\nIn clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words ‘likely to
\ncause death’ occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of
\nSection 299, the words “sufficient in the ordinary course of
\nnature to cause death” have been used. Obviously, the
\ndistinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death
\nand a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\nto cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if
\noverlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference
\nbetween clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300
\nis one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the
\nintended bodily injury.  To put it more broadly, it is the degree
\nof probability of death which determines whether a culpable
\nhomicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree.  The
\nword ‘likely’ in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of
\nprobable as distinguished from a mere possibility.  The words
\n“bodily injury…….sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
\ncause death” mean that death will be the “most probable”
\nresult of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of
\nnature.\n<\/p>\n
For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that
\nthe offender intended to cause death, so long as the death
\nensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient
\nto cause death in the ordinary course of nature.  Rajwant and
\nAnr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt
\nillustration of this point.\n<\/p>\n
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 465),
\nVivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning
\nand scope of clause (3). It was observed that the prosecution
\nmust prove the following facts before it can bring a case under
\nSection 300, “thirdly”. First, it must establish quite objectively,
\nthat a bodily injury is present; secondly the nature of the
\ninjury must be proved. These are purely objective
\ninvestigations.  Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an
\nintention to inflict that particular injury, that is to say, that it
\nwas not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of
\ninjury was intended.  Once these three elements are proved to
\nbe present, the enquiry proceeds further, and fourthly it must
\nbe proved that the injury of the type just described made up of
\nthe three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death
\nin the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is
\npurely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the
\nintention of the offender.\n<\/p>\n
The ingredients of clause “Thirdly” of Section 300, IPC
\nwere brought out by the illustrious Judge in his terse language
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove
\nthe following facts before it can bring a case
\nunder Section 300, “thirdly”.\n<\/p>\n
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that
\na bodily injury is present.\n<\/p>\n
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be
\nproved.  These are purely objective
\ninvestigations.\n<\/p>\n
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an
\nintention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
\nthat is to say that it was not accidental or
\nunintentional, or that some other kind of
\ninjury was intended.\n<\/p>\n
Once these three elements are proved to be
\npresent, the enquiry proceeds further and,<\/p>\n
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of
\nthe type just described made up of the three
\nelements set out above is sufficient to cause
\ndeath in the ordinary course of nature.  This
\npart of the enquiry is purely objective and
\ninferential and has nothing to do with the
\nintention of the offender.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge explained the third ingredient in the
\nfollowing words (at page 468):\n<\/p>\n
“The question is not whether the prisoner
\nintended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial
\none but whether he intended to inflict the
\ninjury that is proved to be present.  If he can
\nshow that he did not, or if the totality of the
\ncircumstances justify such an inference, then
\nof course, the intent that the section requires
\nis not proved.  But if there is nothing beyond
\nthe injury and the fact that the appellant
\ninflicted it, the only possible inference is that
\nhe intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its
\nseriousness or intended serious consequences,
\nis neither here or there.  The question, so far
\nas the intention is concerned, is not whether
\nhe intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a
\nparticular degree of seriousness but whether
\nhe intended to inflict the injury in question
\nand once the existence of the injury is proved
\nthe intention to cause it will be presumed
\nunless the evidence or the circumstances
\nwarrant an opposite conclusion.”\n<\/p>\n
These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus
\nclassicus.  The test laid down by Virsa Singh’s case (supra) for
\nthe applicability of clause “Thirdly” is now ingrained in our
\nlegal system and has become part of the rule of law. Under
\nclause thirdly of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is
\nmurder, if both the following conditions are satisfied: i.e. (a)
\nthat the act which causes death is done with the intention of
\ncausing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily
\ninjury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is
\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It
\nmust be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
\nparticular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of
\nnature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury
\nfound to be present was the injury that was intended to be
\ninflicted.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh’s
\ncase, even if the intention of accused was limited to the
\ninfliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the
\nordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention
\nof causing death, the offence would be murder.  Illustration (c)
\nappended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (c) of Section 299 and clause (4) of Section 300
\nboth require knowledge of the probability of the act causing
\ndeath.  It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate
\nmuch on the distinction between these corresponding clauses.
\nIt will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would
\nbe applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the
\nprobability of death of a person or persons in general as
\ndistinguished from a particular person or persons  being
\ncaused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a
\npractical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender
\nmust be of the highest degree of probability, the act having
\nbeen committed by the offender without any excuse for
\nincurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron
\nimperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the
\ntask of the Court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined
\nand the second and the third stages so telescoped into each
\nother that it may not be convenient to give a separate
\ntreatment to the matters involved in the second and third
\nstages.\n<\/p>\n
The position was illuminatingly highlighted by this Court
\nin State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr.<\/a>
\n(1976 (4) SCC 382), Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors.
\nv. State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a> (2002 (7) SCC 175), Augustine
\nSaldanha v. State of Karnataka<\/a> (2003 (10) SCC 472), Shanker
\nNarayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> 2005 (9) SCC 71,
\nThangiya v. State of T.N. (2005 (9) SCC 650), Rajinder v. State
\nof Haryana<\/a> (2006 (5) SCC 425) and in Raj Pal v. State of
\nHaryana<\/a> (2006 (9) SCC 678).\n<\/p>\n
In view of the factual position as noted in the background
\nof the principles set up above it is clear that the appropriate
\nconviction is under Section 304 Part I, IPC which is
\naccordingly altered. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet
\nthe ends  of justice.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 214 of 2007 PETITIONER: Abbas Ali RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/02\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-34262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - 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\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-21T02:08:30+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\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T02:08:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2537,\"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\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-21T02:08:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - 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\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-21T02:08:30+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\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T02:08:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007"},"wordCount":2537,"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\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007","name":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-21T02:08:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-15-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abbas Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/34262","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=34262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}