{"id":36349,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-04T01:12:21","modified_gmt":"2018-01-03T19:42:21","slug":"budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                       CR. APPEAL (DB) No. 424 of 2000R\n                                    -------\n<\/pre>\n
  Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th
\n  May, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994 by learned 1st Additional
\n  Sessions Judge, Chaibasa.\n<\/p>\n
                               ——-\n<\/p>\n
   Budhdeo Purty                          ...     ...     ...      Appellant\n\n                                  Versus\n   The State of Jharkhand                      ...      ...      ...      Respondent\n                                    -------\n   For the Appellant              : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Appellant\n   For the State                  : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.\n\n                               PRESENT\n                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL\n                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD\n                                   -------\nOral Order :\nPer D.N. Patel, J.\nDt. 1st September, 2009     The present appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant\n\n<\/pre>\n
      against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated<\/p>\n
      27th May, 2000 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in<\/p>\n
      Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted<\/p>\n
      for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to<\/p>\n
      undergo life imprisonment for causing murder of Budhni Devi.<\/p>\n
      2.             If the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the relevant facts are as<\/p>\n
      under:\n<\/p>\n
                     It is the case of the prosecution that the whole incident had taken<\/p>\n
               place on 3rd December, 1993 at 4.00 p.m. when Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and<\/p>\n
               the deceased- Budhni Devi were returning from Village-Haldia at footpath<\/p>\n
               of Village Heperburu and at that time, the appellant-accused came<\/p>\n
               suddenly with a stick and caused injury to the deceased- Budhni Devi.<\/p>\n
               When the informant- Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) tried to save the life of the<\/p>\n
               deceased, she was again caused injury by stick and thereafter Tilotma Devi<\/p>\n
               (P.W. 3) ran away and while running away, she saw that the appellant was<\/p>\n
               causing injuries by stone to Budhni Devi on her head, who had fallen down.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               There was profuse bleeding also. The informant (P.W. 3) was also given a
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
      stick blow by the appellant-accused. Having received bleeding injury, the<\/p>\n
      informant ran to the house of one Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4). The informant<\/p>\n
      was also shouting for rescue of the deceased, but, nobody came at the scene<\/p>\n
      of offence to save her. Thereafter, Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) immediately<\/p>\n
      came at the scene of offence along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
      police was called. Meanwhile, for the whole night all remained present near<\/p>\n
      the dead-body. The appellant-accused, who was apprehended by the<\/p>\n
      villagers, was also compelled to stay there and the First Information report<\/p>\n
      was lodged on 4th December, 1993 at 6.00 a.m. at Village Heperburu, Police<\/p>\n
      Station-Majhgaon, District Singhbhum West. Investigation was carried out,<\/p>\n
      wherein,    statements of the witnesses were recorded, evidences were<\/p>\n
      collected and ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-<\/p>\n
      accused and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,<\/p>\n
      where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994 and the trial court<\/p>\n
      after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, passed the<\/p>\n
      impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th May,<\/p>\n
      2000 against the present appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302<\/p>\n
      of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Budhni Devi.<\/p>\n
             Against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and<\/p>\n
      sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused.<\/p>\n
3.           We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted<\/p>\n
that no motive has been established by the prosecution as there was no animosity<\/p>\n
between the deceased and the appellant-accused. In fact, the appellant-accused is<\/p>\n
handicapped. There is no eye witness except P.W. 3 and the depositions of the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses are full of omissions, contradictions and improvements.<\/p>\n
This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and<\/p>\n
hence the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserve to be<\/p>\n
quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, which is also fatal<\/p>\n
to the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
4.            We have heard learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, who<\/p>\n
has submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition<\/p>\n
of the injured eye witness i.e. Tilotma Devi-P.W. 3 (the informant). The appellant-<\/p>\n
accused is named in the First Information Report. P.W. 3 has seen the whole<\/p>\n
offence, committed by the appellant-accused. When P.W. 3 and the deceased were<\/p>\n
returning from Village Haldia at a footpath of Village Heperburu, assault was<\/p>\n
committed by the appellant-accused on the deceased as well as on the informant.<\/p>\n
The informant has also sustained head injury and there was bleeding also. Initially,<\/p>\n
the deceased was given a stick blow, as a result of which, she fell down and the<\/p>\n
appellant-accused thereafter caused injuries on her head by means of stone. There<\/p>\n
was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence and the stick and stone both were<\/p>\n
having blood stains and were lying near the dead-body. The injured eye witness<\/p>\n
(P.W. 3) shouted for rescue but no-body came at the scene of offence. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
she ran towards the village at the house of one Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) who came<\/p>\n
at the scene of offence with his servants (P.W. 11 and P.W. 12) who are also the<\/p>\n
villagers. Looking to the deposition of all these prosecution witnesses, it appears<\/p>\n
that they have supported the deposition of P.W. 3. Thus, the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution is based upon the deposition given by the injured eye witness (P.W. 3),<\/p>\n
supported by the depositions of P.W. 4, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, who are the<\/p>\n
villagers, who had rushed immediately at the scene of offence. There is also<\/p>\n
enough corroboration to the depositions by the medial evidence of Dr. Sheo<\/p>\n
Shankar Birua (P.W. 13), who has carried out the post mortem examination upon<\/p>\n
the dead body of the deceased. As per the medical evidence, cause of death of the<\/p>\n
deceased is head injury and the injury is capable of being caused by stone. It is also<\/p>\n
submitted by the A.P.P. that when the whole case is based upon the deposition<\/p>\n
given by the eye witness, which is getting enough corroboration by the depositions
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
given by other witnesses as well as by the medical evidence, even if the motive is<\/p>\n
unable to be established by the prosecution, it is not fatal to the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Motive was within the knowledge of the accused. The informant<\/p>\n
(P.W. 3) has no animosity with the appellant-accused, though this witness is also<\/p>\n
the villager of Village-Heperburu. In these circumstances, even if motive is not<\/p>\n
proved by the prosecution, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt by the<\/p>\n
prosecution that the appellant-accused has committed murder of the deceased-<\/p>\n
Budhni Devi and, thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in<\/p>\n
appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses on record and, therefore,<\/p>\n
this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence, by exercising the appellate powers.\n<\/p>\n
5.            Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the<\/p>\n
evidences on record, it appears that:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)    The whole incident had taken place on 3rd December,1993 at about 4.00<\/p>\n
             p.m. when the informant-Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and the deceased-<\/p>\n
             Budhni Devi were returning from Village-Haldia at footpath of Village<\/p>\n
             Heperburu. At that time, the appellant-accused came suddenly with a<\/p>\n
             stick and caused injuries to the deceased- Budhni Devi as well as to<\/p>\n
             the informant- Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3), as a result of which, Budhni<\/p>\n
             Devi fell down and Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3), though got bleeding injury,<\/p>\n
             ran away and while running away, she saw that it is the present<\/p>\n
             appellant-accused, who has caused injuries to the deceased by stone on<\/p>\n
             her head. There was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence. Stick and<\/p>\n
             stone both were having blood stains, lying near the body of the<\/p>\n
             deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)   Looking to the deposition of P.W. 3-Tilotma Devi, who is the eye<\/p>\n
             witness to the occurrence, it appears that she has narrated, in her<\/p>\n
             deposition, how the whole incident has taken place. Thereafter, she
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    had run to the house of Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) and immediately P.W.<\/p>\n
    4 along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 (both servants of P.W. 4) rushed at<\/p>\n
    the scene of offence. Looking to the cross-examination of this witness,<\/p>\n
    nothing is coming out in favour of the appellant-accused. The<\/p>\n
    informant (P.W. 3) has stated that the police came on 4th December,<\/p>\n
    1993 in the early morning at 6.00 a.m. and the First Information Report<\/p>\n
    was lodged by her on the same date and time at Village Heperburu,<\/p>\n
    Police Station-Majhgaon, District Singhbhum West. The appellant-<\/p>\n
    accused is named in the First Information Report. There is also<\/p>\n
    reference of stick and stone. She was also injured at the hands of the<\/p>\n
    appellant-accused. Thus, looking to her deposition, it is evident that<\/p>\n
    she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. Her injury certificate is Ext. 5,<\/p>\n
    proved by Shatrudhan Gope (P.W. 14).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4-Nilambar Purty, it appears that<\/p>\n
    this witness has stated clearly before the trial court that the informant-<\/p>\n
    Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) came to his house in the injured condition and<\/p>\n
    told him (P.W. 4) that the appellant-accused (she was narrating the<\/p>\n
    accused as “Langra”), who is handicapped, has caused injuries to<\/p>\n
    Budhni Devi by means of stick and stone at a footpath of Village<\/p>\n
    Heperburu, and her dead-body is lying there. Soon thereafter, P.W. 4<\/p>\n
    along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 (both servants of P.W. 4) rushed at the<\/p>\n
    scene of offence and saw the dead-body of Budhni Devi. There was<\/p>\n
    bleeding also. Blood stained stick and stone were lying nearby the<\/p>\n
    dead-body. The appellant-accused was also there at the scene of<\/p>\n
    offence and thereafter the other prosecution witnesses, who are the<\/p>\n
    villagers, also came there. They also waited for police to come and they<\/p>\n
    watched the dead-body of Budhni Devi. They also watched the<\/p>\n
    appellant-accused and on 4th December, 1993 at 6.00 a.m. when the
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
     police came, the First Information Report was lodged which was<\/p>\n
     signed by P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9. Looking to the cross-examination<\/p>\n
     of P.W. 4, this witness is reliable and trustworthy. Neither there is any<\/p>\n
     exaggeration nor any omission or contradiction in his deposition.<\/p>\n
     Though he is not an eye witness, he has corroborated the deposition<\/p>\n
     given by P.W. 3 and the facts which have been narrated by P.W. 3.<\/p>\n
     Thus, there is enough corroboration to the deposition given by the eye<\/p>\n
     witness (P.W.3) and P.W. 4.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Likewise, looking to the depositions of P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 9,<\/p>\n
     P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, it appears that all the witnesses are the<\/p>\n
     villagers who rushed at the scene of offence and saw the dead-body of<\/p>\n
     Budhni Devi in a bleeding condition. Stick and stone were also having<\/p>\n
     blood stains by which murder was committed by the appellant-<\/p>\n
     accused. All these witnesses are corroborating the deposition given by<\/p>\n
     P.W. 3. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by<\/p>\n
     the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
(v) Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 13 -Dr. Sheo Shankar Birua, it<\/p>\n
     appears that this witness has conducted autopsy of the dead body of<\/p>\n
     the deceased and has narrated the following injuries, found on the<\/p>\n
     person of the deceased- Budhni Devi, as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                ”       Head was badly crushed and grey matters coming out
\n                    of multiple fracture wound of the scalp. Only anterior and
\n                    lower part of the face was left intact.\n<\/p>\n
                        On dissection of the dead-body, the whole structures of
\n                    chest were found intact. The whole structure of abdomen
\n                    was intact. Uterus was small. Urinary bladder was full.
\n                        In his opinion, the deceased has died due to head injury
\n                    caused by hard and blunt heavy substance like heavy
\n                    stone. Time elapsed since death was within 48 hours.”
\n              From the aforesaid injuries, it appears that the cause of death,<\/p>\n
     stated by the doctor, is the head injury, which can be caused by stone.
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
       Thus, there is enough corroboration by the medical evidence to the<\/p>\n
       deposition given by P.W. 3, an injured eye witness.        Post Mortem<\/p>\n
       examination was carried out by this witness (P.W. 13) on 4th December,<\/p>\n
       1993 at about 3:30 p.m. (Ext. 4) and it is opined by this doctor that the<\/p>\n
       death of the deceased was caused within 48 hours. Thus, the time<\/p>\n
       referred to by the doctor is also tallying with the time of murder, stated<\/p>\n
       by the injured eye witness.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)   Looking to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, especially<\/p>\n
       P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, it is proved by the<\/p>\n
       prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts that it is the appellant-<\/p>\n
       accused who has initially caused injuries by stick upon Budhni Devi as<\/p>\n
       well as upon Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and thereafter P.W. 3 ran away and<\/p>\n
       the deceased-Budhni Devi had fallen down and the appellant-accused<\/p>\n
       caused head injury upon Budhni Devi by means of stone. The injuries<\/p>\n
       were so severe in nature that the deceased-Budhni Devi expired on the<\/p>\n
       spot. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
       about the omissions and contradictions in the depositions, given by<\/p>\n
       P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8. Looking to the cross-examination of these<\/p>\n
       witnesses, it appears that though there is some deviation in the<\/p>\n
       narrations as to how they were coming from one mela, namely,<\/p>\n
       Venilaga Mela and whether they were going by bicycle or coming by<\/p>\n
       cart and they saw the dead-body of the deceased at Village-<\/p>\n
       Heperburu, no omission or contradiction even slightly is there in the<\/p>\n
       depositions of all the prosecution witnesses to the effect that they all<\/p>\n
       saw the dead-body of the deceased at Village Heperburu, there was<\/p>\n
       profuse bleeding and the stick and stone were also having blood<\/p>\n
       stains. These witnesses are rustic villagers and they have given<\/p>\n
       depositions after approximately 72 months and, therefore, some
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
            deviation on their own part as to whether they were going on bicycle<\/p>\n
            or by cart, will not carry much material contradiction. So far the<\/p>\n
            deposition of injured eye witness (P.W. 3) is concerned, she has<\/p>\n
            narrated the whole incident, in detail, without omission or<\/p>\n
            contradiction. Further, the witnesses had rushed at the scene of offence<\/p>\n
            later on and amongst all, Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) had rushed at the<\/p>\n
            scene of offence first along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12. Looking to the<\/p>\n
            depositions of these witnesses, it is evident that no error has been<\/p>\n
            committed by the trial court in arriving at the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
            prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the<\/p>\n
            appellant-accused has committed murder of the deceased. There is,<\/p>\n
            thus, no error committed by the trial court in evaluating the evidences<\/p>\n
            of the prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
6.            Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued out, in detail, that<\/p>\n
no motive is established by the prosecution. This contention is also not much<\/p>\n
useful to the appellant-accused, when the whole case of the prosecution is based<\/p>\n
upon the deposition of injured eye witness (P.W. 3), when the deposition of the<\/p>\n
injured eye witness is corroborated by the depositions given by P.W. 4, P.W.10 and<\/p>\n
P.W. 12 and when there is enough corroboration of the depositions by the medical<\/p>\n
evidence (P.W. 13).\n<\/p>\n
7.            In these situations, even if motive is not established by the<\/p>\n
prosecution, it is not fatal to the prosecution. Motive basically runs in the mind of<\/p>\n
the appellant-accused. If the accused discloses the motive, then it becomes clearer.<\/p>\n
8.            Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has rightly relied<\/p>\n
upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bahal Singh Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Haryana {AIR 1976 S.C. 2032}, Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1981<\/p>\n
CRI. L.J. SC 618) and Jarnail Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana {1993 CRI.<\/p>\n
L.J. 1656 (SC)}.\n<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.            In view of the aforesaid decisions, even if the motive could not be<\/p>\n
     established by the prosecution, but, if there is evidence given by the eye witness,<\/p>\n
     which is corroborated by the dispositions of other prosecution witnesses as well as<\/p>\n
     by the medical evidence, it is not fatal for the prosecution. To establish the motive<\/p>\n
     by the prosecution is not sine qua none, when the case of the prosecution is based<\/p>\n
     upon the deposition of the eye witness or the injured eye witness, supported or<\/p>\n
     corroborated by the depositions of other prosecution witnesses as well as by the<\/p>\n
     medical evidence. Motive is within the exclusive knowledge and domain of the<\/p>\n
     accused.\n<\/p>\n
     10.           Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidences on record, the prosecution<\/p>\n
     has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused has<\/p>\n
     committed murder of Budhni Devi. We, therefore, hold that there is no error in<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th May,<\/p>\n
     2000, passed by the trial court, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted<\/p>\n
     and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, as aforesaid.<\/p>\n
     11.           There is no substance in this appeal. Hence, the same is hereby<\/p>\n
     dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
     dated 27th May, 2000, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994, is<\/p>\n
     hereby affirmed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 (D.N. Patel, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                 (R.R. Prasad, J.)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated: 1st of September, 2009
\nAKT-Ravi \/N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 CR. APPEAL (DB) No. 424 of 2000R ——- Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th May, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa. ——- Budhdeo Purty … … […]<\/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-36349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBudhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-03T19:42:21+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T19:42:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2799,\"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\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-03T19:42:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-03T19:42:21+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T19:42:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":2799,"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\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009","name":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-03T19:42:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/budhdeo-purty-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Budhdeo Purty vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36349","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=36349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}