{"id":43950,"date":"2010-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-18T07:19:26","modified_gmt":"2017-07-18T01:49:26","slug":"purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR                                                 (AFR)\n\n\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2015\/2006\n\n        1. Purushottam Patel, son of Ramlal Patel\n        aged about 43 years.\n        2. Noni, son of Khuman Patel,\n        aged about 60 years.\n        3. Ghassi @ Ghasoti, son of Ramsai,\n        aged about 45 years.\n        4. Gulab Patel, son of Ramlal Patel,\n        aged about 28 years.\n        5. Gajraj Patel, son of Purushottam Patel,\n        aged about 27 years.\n        6. Rajju Master alias Rajaram Raikwar,\n        son of Nandlal Raikwar, aged about 43 years.\n        All cultivators and residents of village\n        Bori-Kala, Police Station Hatta,\n        District Damoh, M.P.\n\n                                                                         .......Appellants\n\n                                 -Versus-\n\n        State of Madhya Pradesh\n                                                                       ........Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellant:                Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri\n                                   Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n For the respondent:               Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                     CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 2232\/2006\n\n\n        Tajammul Hussain, son of Sheikh Rustam,\n        aged about 47 years, Resident of village\n        Borikala, P.S.Hatta,\n        District Damoh (M.P.)                    .......Applicant\n\n                                   -Versus-\n\n        1. Purushottam Patel, son of Ramlal Patel\n        aged about 43 years.\n        2. Noni, son of Khuman Patel,\n        aged about 60 years.\n        3. Ghassi @ Ghasoti, son of Ramsai,\n        aged about 45 years.\n        4. Gulab Patel, son of Ramlal Patel,\n        aged about 28 years.\n        5. Gajraj Patel, son of Purushottam Patel,\n        aged about 27 years.\n        6. Rajju Master alias Rajaram Raikwar,\n        son of Nandlal Raikwar, aged about 43 years.\n                                                   (2)                               Cr.A.2015\/2006\n                                                                                    Cr.R.2232\/2006\n\n\n\n\n        All cultivators and residents of village\n        Bori-Kala, Police Station Hatta,\n        District Damoh, M.P.\n        7. State of Madhya Pradesh\n        through P.S. Hatta,\n        District Damoh (M.P.)\n                                                ........Non-applicants\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n         For the applicant                 Shri Mohd.Amzad, Advocate.\n         For the respondents: Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri\n                                           Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n                                           Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n          Present:             Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n                               Hon'ble Justice Shri S.C.Sinho\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                            Date of hearing : 18.03.2010\n                                            Date of judgment: 31.03.2010\n\n                                            **********\n\n                                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per Rakesh Saksena, J.\n<\/p>\n
                 Since the aforesaid appeal as well as revision arise out of<\/p>\n
the common judgment passed by the trial Court, both are being<\/p>\n
disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.               Appellants have filed Criminal Appeal No.2015\/2006<\/p>\n
against the judgment dated 10.10.2006 passed by IInd Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.271\/2001 convicting<\/p>\n
them under sections 304-I\/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years on each count<\/p>\n
respectively.\n<\/p>\n
3.               Complainant           Tajammul          Hussain         has     filed     Criminal<\/p>\n
Revision No.2232\/2006 against the aforesaid accused persons<\/p>\n
challenging their acquittal under section 302\/149 I.P.C. Though this<\/p>\n
revision was filed against all the 23 accused persons tried by the
\n                                  (3)                    Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                        Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
Court below, however, the revision was admitted only against non-<\/p>\n
applicants No. 1 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
4.          Facts of the prosecution case are that a dispute existed<\/p>\n
between the appellants on one side and deceased Rafique on the<\/p>\n
other over land belonging to one Natthu Lodhi. On 1.12.2000, at<\/p>\n
about 11:00 a.m., Jira Bai and Premrani (acquitted co-accused) went<\/p>\n
to the house of Shafique (PW2) and called him and Rafique, to the<\/p>\n
house of Moti Patel for resolving the dispute saying that Ramlal Patel<\/p>\n
and Purushottam Patel had called him. Accordingly, at about 12:30<\/p>\n
p.m., Rafique went to the house of Moti Patel on a bicycle. After<\/p>\n
some time Shafique along with Lalu Ahirwar (PW14) and Kalu<\/p>\n
Pathan (PW13) also reached there. When they reached near the<\/p>\n
house of Moti Patel, they saw Rafique standing in the courtyard<\/p>\n
surrounded by 23 accused persons including the appellants. They all<\/p>\n
were armed with weapons and were assaulting Rafique. Purushottam<\/p>\n
Patel, Rajaram and Ghassi had swords, Gajraj had a farsa, Gulab had<\/p>\n
a ballam, Noni Patel had an axe and Ramlal Patel had a gun. Other<\/p>\n
accused persons assaulted him with fist and kick blows. When<\/p>\n
Shafique and other persons reached near them, Ramlal Patel fired<\/p>\n
his gun in the air but when they raised a ‘Lalkaar’, all the accused<\/p>\n
persons ran away. They saw bleeding injuries on the body of Rafique.<\/p>\n
He was squirming and after some time he expired.<\/p>\n
5.    The news regarding the incident was received by ASI Hatta<\/p>\n
N.P.Tiwari (PW16). He along with police force reached the spot<\/p>\n
where he recorded Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P\/19) given by Shafique<\/p>\n
(PW12). He also seized blood from the spot. On the basis of Dehati<\/p>\n
Nalshi, later on First Information Report Ex.P\/18 was recorded at<\/p>\n
police station. Dead body of Rafique was sent for postmortem<\/p>\n
examination. Accused were arrested and weapons were recovered
\n                                  (4)                    Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                        Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
from their possession. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and<\/p>\n
case was committed for trial.\n<\/p>\n
6.         Defence of the appellants was of denial and false<\/p>\n
implication. According to them, deceased was of notorious character.<\/p>\n
In the past, he had been prosecuted for molesting women and for<\/p>\n
some other offences. On the day of incident he had entered the house<\/p>\n
of Moti Patel with some ulterior purpose and had been killed inside<\/p>\n
the house and thereafter his body was thrown outside in the<\/p>\n
courtyard. Shafique (PW12), Kalu (PW13) and Lalu (PW14) had in<\/p>\n
fact not witnessed the incident and had been introduced to bolster a<\/p>\n
false case. Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P\/19) was also ascribed at some later<\/p>\n
stage.\n<\/p>\n
7.         At the trial, prosecution case rested mainly on the<\/p>\n
testimony of eyewitnesses Shafique (PW12), Kalu (PW13), Lalu<\/p>\n
(PW14) and the medical evidence of Dr. Rakesh Bhardwaj (PW10).<\/p>\n
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellants of the<\/p>\n
charges under section 302\/149 I.P.C. but found them guilty under<\/p>\n
section 304-I I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them accordingly.<\/p>\n
However, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient against rest<\/p>\n
of 17 accused persons, acquitted them of all the charges.<\/p>\n
8.         Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the<\/p>\n
trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence<\/p>\n
of the alleged eyewitnesses. They were related to deceased and were<\/p>\n
interested witnesses. Statement of Kalu u\/s 161 Cr.P.C. was<\/p>\n
recorded on 27.1.2001 i.e about one and a half month after the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Apart from that, learned counsel submitted that the trial<\/p>\n
Court committed error in convicting the appellants under section<\/p>\n
304-I I.P.C. since, none of the injury, alleged to have been inflicted
\n                                     (5)                   Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                          Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
by the accused persons, was found on any vital part of the body of<\/p>\n
deceased, at the most, appellants could have been held liable for the<\/p>\n
commission of offence under section 304 Part II I.P.C. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel also placed reliance on Molu and others Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Haryana (AIR 1976 SC 2499), Sarwan Singh and others Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab (AIR 1978 SC 1525), Sita Ram and others vs.<\/p>\n
State of U.P. (AIR<\/a> 1993 SC 350) and State of U.P. Vs. Satish<\/p>\n
(AIR 2005 SC 1000).\n<\/p>\n
9.         Learned counsel for the State submitted that the<\/p>\n
evidence of eyewitnesses was reliable and trustworthy. Merely on<\/p>\n
the ground of delay in recording the police statement, the evidence<\/p>\n
of otherwise reliable witness could not be discarded especially when<\/p>\n
his name was mentioned in Dehati Nalshi recorded immediately after<\/p>\n
the occurrence. He justified and supported the conviction of the<\/p>\n
appellants under section 304-I I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
10.        Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Revision<\/p>\n
No.2232\/2006,    on   the   other   hand,   submitted   that   from   the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, a clear case<\/p>\n
of commission of offence by the accused persons under section<\/p>\n
302\/149 I.P.C. was made out, therefore, accused\/appellants were<\/p>\n
liable to be convicted under section 302\/149 I.P.C. and for that<\/p>\n
purpose the case deserved to be remanded.\n<\/p>\n
11.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
have gone through the entire evidence on record.<\/p>\n
12.        It was no longer disputed that deceased Rafique died of<\/p>\n
homicidal injuries. It was also reflected from the evidence of Dr.<\/p>\n
Rakesh Bhardwaj (PW10), who conducted postmortem examination<\/p>\n
of the body of deceased and found following injuries in his report<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/17(A):-\n<\/p>\n
                                     (6)                  Cr.A.2015\/2006\n                                                         Cr.R.2232\/2006\n\n\n\n\n      (1)    Incised wound - over upper part of left leg, below\n      the    knee joint 14cm x 4cm x 5cm starting anteriorly\n<\/pre>\n
      covering whole of the back, muscles and blood vessels cut.
\n      Both bones cut.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)    Incised wound – 6cm x 2.5cm x 1.5cm over lower
\n      part of right forearm, dorsal aspect, blood vessels cut;
\n      shaft of right ulna cut in its lower part.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)    Incised wound – .75cm x .25cm muscle deep over
\n      middle of the right forearm.\n<\/p>\n
      (4)    Linear abrasion – 4.5cm x .25cm over antero lateral
\n      part of lower middle part of right upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
      (5)    Linear abrasion – 10cm x .25cm over upper part of
\n      right upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
      (6)    Incised wound – .5cm x .25cm muscle deep just
\n      medial to injury No.2.\n<\/p>\n
      (7)    Incised wound – over middle part of left forearm 3cm
\n      x 1.5cm x 2.5cm.\n<\/p>\n
      (8)    Abrasion – on middle of the left upper arm 6cm x .
\n      25cm.\n<\/p>\n
      (9)    Haematoma over occipital region of scalp 3cm x
\n      1cm.\n<\/p>\n
             In the opinion of doctor, cause of death of deceased was<\/p>\n
Cardio respiration as a result of shock due to haemorrhage.<\/p>\n
13.          Eyewitness Sheikh Safique        (PW12) deposed that on<\/p>\n
1.12.2000 at about 11:00 a.m., Jira Bai and Premrani came to his<\/p>\n
house and told that Ramlal Patel and Purushottam Patel were calling<\/p>\n
them for a compromise in respect of dispute of land. At about 12:30,<\/p>\n
his brother Rafique went on a cycle towards the house of Motilal.<\/p>\n
After about 10-15 minutes, when he, Kalu Pathan and Lalu Ahirwar<\/p>\n
reached the house of Motilal, they saw accused persons assaulting<\/p>\n
Rafique. Purushottam, Rajaram and Ghassu Chamar had swords,<\/p>\n
Gajraj had a farsa, Noni Patel had an axe, Gulab Patel had a spear<\/p>\n
and Ramlal Patel had a gun. Other accused persons were empty<\/p>\n
handed. When they were at about 100 feet away from the house of
\n                                  (7)                    Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                        Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
Motilal, they shouted whereupon accused Ramlal fired a gun in the<\/p>\n
air, but when they reached near, all the accused persons ran away.<\/p>\n
They saw his brother lying smeared in the blood. There were cut<\/p>\n
injuries on his leg and both the hands. Rafique could not speak<\/p>\n
anything and died. He then went to lodge the report with the police.<\/p>\n
14.        Head constable Ramswarup Upadhyaya (PW11) stated<\/p>\n
that an information was received at police station about some<\/p>\n
quarrel in village Bori, due to which ASI Tiwari and constable<\/p>\n
Ghanshyam proceeded for village Bori. Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P\/19) was<\/p>\n
brought by Ghanshyam on the basis of which he registered First<\/p>\n
Information Report Ex.P\/18 on 1.12.2000. Similarly, Assistant Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector N.P.Tiwari (PW16) deposed that at police station, Hatta he<\/p>\n
received information about the quarrel in village Bori whereupon he<\/p>\n
went to the spot. On report by Sheikh Shafique, he registered the<\/p>\n
crime under sections 147,148,149,302 I.P.C. against 23 accused<\/p>\n
persons. He recorded Dehati Nalshi Ex.P\/19 as well as marg report<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/40. He stated that an old man had given information to him at<\/p>\n
police station about the quarrel and no report was recorded on the<\/p>\n
said information at police station, but he had recorded a brief<\/p>\n
information in Roznamcha and had proceeded for village Bori. Thus,<\/p>\n
the evidence of Sheikh Shafique (PW12) stands corroborated by the<\/p>\n
evidence of ASI N.P.Tiwari (PW16).\n<\/p>\n
15.        Corroborating the evidence of Sheikh Shafique (PW12),<\/p>\n
Kalu (PW13) stated that at about 12 o’clock when he was going to his<\/p>\n
field, Shafique and Lalu met him on way and informed that a<\/p>\n
panchayat was convened for resolving the dispute about the land of<\/p>\n
Moti Patel. Then he along with them went to the house of Moti Patel.<\/p>\n
When he reached there, he saw Purushottam Patel, Gajraj Patel,<\/p>\n
Gulab and Ghassu Chamar assaulting Rafique by means of swords,
\n                                     (8)                       Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                              Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
farsa, spear etc. Ramlal Patel, who had a gun, fired it when he saw<\/p>\n
them approaching to the place of occurrence. When they reached<\/p>\n
there, accused persons ran away and they saw the body of Rafique<\/p>\n
lying smeared in the blood. After the occurrence, he went to his field,<\/p>\n
but at about 5 o’clock in the evening, Kotwar called him to join the<\/p>\n
inquest proceedings. Inquest memo Ex.P\/27 was prepared before<\/p>\n
him and he had signed it. This witness admitted that his statement<\/p>\n
was recorded by the police about one and a half month after the<\/p>\n
occurrence. According to him, he remained busy at his house and in<\/p>\n
agricultural operations at his field, but for the first time when police<\/p>\n
called him he gave his statement. He did not go to lodge the report<\/p>\n
because the brother of deceased was with him and it was for him to<\/p>\n
lodge the report. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that<\/p>\n
since the police statement of this witness was recorded after an<\/p>\n
inordinate delay, his evidence was not trustworthy. It is to be seen<\/p>\n
that the name of this witness was mentioned by the complainant in<\/p>\n
Dehati Nalshi Ex.P\/19 which was recorded immediately after the<\/p>\n
incident   and   that   he   had   also   participated   in   the   inquest<\/p>\n
proceedings, therefore, merely by carelessness or negligence on the<\/p>\n
part of investigating officer in not recording the statement of witness<\/p>\n
at the earliest, cannot render the evidence of a witness unworthy of<\/p>\n
reliance only on that account.\n<\/p>\n
16.         In State of U.P. Vs. Satish (supra), Supreme Court<\/p>\n
held “As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this<\/p>\n
Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in<\/p>\n
examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage<\/p>\n
therefrom. It cannot be laid down as rule of universal application<\/p>\n
that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the
\n                                   (9)                         Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                              Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several<\/p>\n
factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is<\/p>\n
plausible and acceptable and the Court accepts the same is<\/p>\n
plausible, there is no reason to interfere.” Since no explanation was<\/p>\n
sought from the Investigating Officer about the delay in recording<\/p>\n
the statement of this witness,       we are unable to hold that the<\/p>\n
evidence of this witness could be discarded merely on account of<\/p>\n
delay in recording his police statement.\n<\/p>\n
17.         It is also true that Sheikh Shafique (PW12) stated that he<\/p>\n
had gone to police station to lodge the report, but this fact was<\/p>\n
belied by the evidence of ASI N.P.Tiwari (PW16), who categorically<\/p>\n
stated that a brief information was given to him at police station by<\/p>\n
some old man and he had recorded that information in the<\/p>\n
Roznamcha. In our opinion, this discrepancy would not be sufficient<\/p>\n
to discard the evidence of Sheikh Shafique altogether.<\/p>\n
18.         Evidence of Sheikh Shafique (PW12) further stands<\/p>\n
corroborated by the evidence of Lalu (PW14), who stated that though<\/p>\n
he saw about 20-25 persons assaulting the deceased, but out of them<\/p>\n
only 8 persons were wielding the weapons and rest of other persons<\/p>\n
were empty handed. He specifically said that Purushottam Patel had<\/p>\n
a sword, Gajraj Patel had a farsa, Gulab Patel had a ballam, Noni<\/p>\n
Patel had an axe, Rajaram had a sword and Ramlal had a gun.<\/p>\n
Though this witness stated that the persons, who were empty handed<\/p>\n
were also assaulting the deceased, but the trial Court did not find<\/p>\n
that part of his evidence trustworthy as it was unnatural that when<\/p>\n
the persons, who were armed with weapons and were assaulting the<\/p>\n
deceased,   other   persons,   who      had   no   weapons,    would   also<\/p>\n
participate in the assault.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (10)                    Cr.A.2015\/2006\n                                                         Cr.R.2232\/2006\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
19.        Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence of aforesaid<\/p>\n
eyewitnesses, concluded that number of persons including other<\/p>\n
accused persons had assembled for the purpose of resolving the<\/p>\n
dispute in the panchayat, therefore, mere presence of all at the spot<\/p>\n
along with accused persons cannot make them liable for commission<\/p>\n
of the offence in the absence of proof of their sharing the common<\/p>\n
object of causing death of Rafique. We are in agreement with the<\/p>\n
aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court. However, the presence<\/p>\n
of accused\/appellants with weapons at the spot indicates their<\/p>\n
common object of causing death of Rafique. If at all they were<\/p>\n
interested in resolving the dispute about the land, there was no<\/p>\n
necessity for them to be armed with lethal weapons. From the<\/p>\n
evidence of Sheikh Shafique (PW12), Kalu (PW13) and Lalu (PW14),<\/p>\n
it is clearly established that appellants Purushottam, Noni, Ghassi,<\/p>\n
Gulab, Gajraj and Rajaram formed an unlawful assembly at the spot<\/p>\n
having common object to cause injuries to Rafique as a result of<\/p>\n
which he died. The conclusion in that regard reached by the trial<\/p>\n
Court appears to us just and proper and is, therefore, affirmed.<\/p>\n
20.        Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
has been that since no injury was caused by the appellants on any<\/p>\n
vital part of the body of deceased, their conviction under section<\/p>\n
304-I I.P.C. was not justified; at the most the appellants might be<\/p>\n
held liable under section 304 Part II I.P.C. and their sentence be<\/p>\n
reduced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant,<\/p>\n
submitted that on the basis of evidence of eyewitnesses and the<\/p>\n
nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, it was clearly<\/p>\n
established that accused persons were liable to be convicted under<\/p>\n
section 302 I.P.C. as their intention to cause death of the deceased
\n                                   (11)                   Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                         Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
was clearly borne out. He, therefore, prayed that the case be<\/p>\n
remanded to trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
21.         Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that none<\/p>\n
of the injuries found on the body of deceased was sufficient in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature to cause death and that none of the<\/p>\n
injuries was found on any vital part of the body of deceased. Dr.<\/p>\n
Rakesh Bhardwaj (PW10) admitted that injuries no.3,4,5,6,7 & 8<\/p>\n
found on the body of deceased were simple in nature. He admitted<\/p>\n
that though injury no.9 was found on the occipital region of scalp but<\/p>\n
since there was no fracture, it was also simple in nature. Only injury<\/p>\n
no.1 & 2 were grievous in nature which were caused by sharp edged<\/p>\n
weapon. Due to excessive haemorrhage from the injury no.1 & 2<\/p>\n
deceased had gone in the state of shock which resulted into his<\/p>\n
death. Doctor no where stated that the injuries, cumulatively, were<\/p>\n
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.<\/p>\n
22.         In case of Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra),<\/p>\n
Supreme Court observed that ” if the injuries that are sufficient in<\/p>\n
the ordinary course of nature to cause death are traced to a<\/p>\n
particular accused, he will be guilty of an offence under section 302<\/p>\n
without the aid of section 149 I.P.C. When the injuries caused are<\/p>\n
cumulatively sufficient to cause death, it is necessary before holding<\/p>\n
each of the accused guilty under section 302 read with section 149<\/p>\n
to find that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to<\/p>\n
cause death or that the members of the unlawful assembly knew it to<\/p>\n
be likely that an offence under section 302 I.P.C. would be<\/p>\n
committed in prosecution of the common object.” In the case of<\/p>\n
Sarwan Singh (supra), numerous injuries were caused by sharp<\/p>\n
edged weapon due to which injured had died, but the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that the area of the injury could not be said to be a
\n                                    (12)                  Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                         Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
vital part of the body and the injury on the head was only 1\/4″ in<\/p>\n
depth and had not caused any damage, held that it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that any of the persons that inflicted injuries intended to cause death<\/p>\n
or such injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to<\/p>\n
cause death. On a consideration of the circumstances and the nature<\/p>\n
of the injuries, it was not possible to hold that the common object of<\/p>\n
the assembly was to cause bodily injury which was sufficient in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature to cause death. As such it could be said<\/p>\n
that the common object of the assembly was to cause bodily injury as<\/p>\n
was likely to cause death which will be an offence under section 304-<\/p>\n
I I.P.C. However, sentence of accused was reduced to 5 years<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment with fine.\n<\/p>\n
23.         In Molu and others Vs. State of Haryana (supra)<\/p>\n
where one deceased suffered 14 injuries and another deceased<\/p>\n
suffered 16 injuries including punctured wounds, Apex Court<\/p>\n
observed that the injuries were caused by lathi and were of minor<\/p>\n
character. Furthermore, the injuries were not on any vital parts of<\/p>\n
the body and even those which were on the scalp portion appear to<\/p>\n
be very superficial. There was nothing to show that the accused<\/p>\n
intended to cause the deliberate murder of the two deceased<\/p>\n
persons. There was no evidence to show that any of the accused<\/p>\n
ordered the killing of the deceased persons or incited or in any way<\/p>\n
expressed a desire to kill the deceased persons at the spot. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, it was held that there was no legal evidence in the<\/p>\n
case that the accused intended to cause the murder of the deceased.<\/p>\n
The fact, however, remains that the accused had caused multiple<\/p>\n
injuries on both the deceased persons on various parts of their<\/p>\n
bodies and, therefore, they undoubtedly had the knowledge that the<\/p>\n
cumulative effect of the injuries would result in the death of the
\n                                   (13)                      Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                            Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
deceased. In these circumstances, accused had committed an offence<\/p>\n
under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not one under<\/p>\n
section 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
24.         In Sitaram and others Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Apex<\/p>\n
Court held “4. However, coming to the nature of the offence we find<\/p>\n
it difficult to convict them under sections 302\/149. The Doctor,<\/p>\n
P.W.16 who conducted the post-mortem, found 28 injuries. Only the<\/p>\n
first three lacerated injuries were on the head and punctured<\/p>\n
wounds Nos. 5,6,7,11 and 12 were on the face but the Doctor did not<\/p>\n
find any internal damage. The doctor noted that the teeth were<\/p>\n
artificial and the denture was complete. Only three teeth of the<\/p>\n
denture were broken. The Doctor even did not say that the injuries<\/p>\n
cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to<\/p>\n
cause death. There is no injury on any of the vital organs. This only<\/p>\n
shows that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to<\/p>\n
belabour the deceased, the Manager of the Raja who was getting the<\/p>\n
land ploughed and according to the accused the ploughing was being<\/p>\n
done high-handedly. Under these circumstances, we are of the view<\/p>\n
that it is not safe to convict the appellants under sections 302\/149,<\/p>\n
I.P.C. Accordingly, we set aside their conviction under sections<\/p>\n
302\/149, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life. Instead we<\/p>\n
convict them under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentence each of<\/p>\n
them to undergo seven years R.I.”\n<\/p>\n
25.         After    bestowing   our     anxious   consideration   to   the<\/p>\n
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and in view<\/p>\n
of the legal position enunciated above, we are of the view that the<\/p>\n
conviction of the appellants under section 304-I I.P.C. was not<\/p>\n
justified, since neither any single injury found on the body was<\/p>\n
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death nor the
\n                                      (14)                   Cr.A.2015\/2006
\n                                                            Cr.R.2232\/2006<\/p>\n
    injuries found on the body, cumulatively, were sufficient in the<\/p>\n
    ordinary course of nature to cause death nor any injury was inflicted<\/p>\n
    on any vital part of the body of deceased. In these circumstances, in<\/p>\n
    our opinion, it could not be held that the injuries by the appellants<\/p>\n
    were caused with the intention of causing death or causing such<\/p>\n
    bodily injury as was likely to cause death of deceased. However,<\/p>\n
    since the appellants wielded weapons like sword, axe, farsa etc. it<\/p>\n
    can safely be held that they had knowledge that it was likely to cause<\/p>\n
    death of deceased. In these circumstances, the conviction of<\/p>\n
    appellants under section 304-I deserves to be altered to one under<\/p>\n
    section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
    26.          We, therefore, allow this appeal only to the extent that<\/p>\n
    the conviction of the appellants is altered from that under section<\/p>\n
    304-I\/149 to under section 304 Part II\/149 I.P.C. and their sentences<\/p>\n
    are reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years<\/p>\n
    rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine of Rs.20,000\/- each is also<\/p>\n
    reduced to Rs.10,000\/- per head and in default of payment of fine,<\/p>\n
    appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period<\/p>\n
    of one year. Conviction and sentence of appellants under section 148<\/p>\n
    I.P.C. is also affirmed. Sentence of imprisonment on both the counts<\/p>\n
    shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
    27.         In the result, Criminal Appeal No.2015\/2006 is partly<\/p>\n
    allowed and Criminal Revision No.2232\/2006 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
          (Rakesh Saksena)                              (S.C.Sinho)\n              Judge                                        Judge\nb\n (15)   Cr.A.2015\/2006\n       Cr.R.2232\/2006\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (AFR) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2015\/2006 1. Purushottam Patel, son of Ramlal Patel aged about 43 years. 2. Noni, son of Khuman Patel, aged about 60 years. 3. Ghassi @ Ghasoti, son of Ramsai, aged […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPurshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - 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\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-18T01:49:26+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-18T01:49:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3767,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-18T01:49:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - 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\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-18T01:49:26+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-18T01:49:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010"},"wordCount":3767,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010","name":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-18T01:49:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purshottam-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 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:\/\/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\/43950","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=43950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}