{"id":4710,"date":"1993-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993"},"modified":"2015-10-04T16:35:40","modified_gmt":"2015-10-04T11:05:40","slug":"hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","title":{"rendered":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1307, \t\t  1994 SCC  Supl.  (2)\t39<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Anand<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Anand, A.S. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHANUMAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/11\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nSINGH N.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR 1307\t\t  1994 SCC  Supl.  (2)\t39\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p>1.Eight\t persons, namely, Basti Ram,  Samander,\t Hanuman,<br \/>\nChunnilal,  Dhyala,  Harnath,  Sultan  and  Godu  Ram\twere<br \/>\nprosecuted  for\t offences under Sections 302  and  201\tIPC.<br \/>\nThey were tried by the learned Sessions Judge who<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">40<\/span><br \/>\nconvicted  Basti Ram and Hanuman under Section 302  IPC\t and<br \/>\nsentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for  life.<br \/>\nSamander and Dhyala were convicted for offence under Section<br \/>\n201  IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous\timprisonment<br \/>\nfor  three  years and to pay a fine of Rs 200  each  and  in<br \/>\ndefault of payment of fine to undergo rigorous\timprisonment<br \/>\nfor  a\tfurther period of six months.\tThe  remaining\tfour<br \/>\naccused,  namely,  Harnath, Sultan, Godu Ram  and  Chunnilal<br \/>\nwere acquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Basti Ram, Hanuman, Samander and Dhyala filed an appeal<br \/>\nchallenging their conviction and sentence while the State of<br \/>\nRajasthan filed an appeal against the acquittal of  Samander<br \/>\nfor  the  offence  under Section 302  IPC  and\tof  Harnath,<br \/>\nSultan, Godu Ram and Chunnilal for their acquittal for\tthis<br \/>\noffence\t under\tSection\t 201  IPC.   The  High\tCourt,\tvide<br \/>\njudgment  dated\t May 12, 1983, set aside the  conviction  of<br \/>\nBasti Ram and Hanuman for an offence under Section 302\tIPC.<br \/>\nHanuman was, however, convicted for an offence under Section<br \/>\n201 [PC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for  a<br \/>\nperiod\tof  three years and to pay a fine of Rs 200  and  in<br \/>\ndefault\t to  suffer further rigorous  imprisonment  for\t six<br \/>\nmonths.\t  The  conviction  of Samander and  Dhyala  for\t the<br \/>\noffence under Section 201 IPC and the sentence imposed\tupon<br \/>\nthem  for  the said offence was also affirmed  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t The  convicts are before us in\t appeal\t by  special<br \/>\nleave against their conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.In  short the prosecution case is that Uda Ram  had  no<br \/>\nson  and had only two daughters, namely Bhuji and  Sharbati.<br \/>\nBasti Ram, who stands acquitted by the High Court is the son<br \/>\nof Bhuji while Chandgi Ram deceased was the son of Sharbati.<br \/>\nIt  was\t shortly after the death of Uda\t Ram  that  disputes<br \/>\narose between Basti Ram and Chandgi Ram regarding the  lands<br \/>\nof  Uda\t Ram.  On account of these disputes,  some  criminal<br \/>\nlitigation  started  between the parties and  a\t case  under<br \/>\nSection 307 IPC was registered against Chandgi Ram which was<br \/>\npending disposal on the date of occurrence.  Chandgi Ram  on<br \/>\naccount of the strained relations, left the village Bharonda<br \/>\nand  started living in village Bugala.\tBasti Ram,  however,<br \/>\ncontinued to stay at village Bharonda where the lands of Uda<br \/>\nRam  were situated.  On the festival of Teej which  fell  on<br \/>\nAugust\t12,  1972 Basti Ram came to village  Bugala  and  he<br \/>\nalong  with Samander and Hanuman called Chandgi Ram  in\t the<br \/>\nevening\t to his chhappar.  The parties discussed  about\t the<br \/>\ndivision of lands.  Chandgi Ram was later on sent for by his<br \/>\nwife  and  mother to have his meals and he returned  to\t his<br \/>\nKotha  for  having his meals and told his  wife\t and  others<br \/>\nabout the discussion with Basti Ram.  After taking his meals<br \/>\nChandgi\t Ram  retired  to his Kotha where he  was  to  sleep<br \/>\nalone.\t His  mother  Smt  Sharbati  PW\t 14,  his  wife\t Smt<br \/>\nRamkauri, PW 7 and his sister Manbhari, PW 11 along with his<br \/>\nother  brother Khyali, slept in the other room of  the\tsame<br \/>\nKotha.\t In  the morning of August 13, 1972  the  sister  of<br \/>\nChandgi\t Ram, Manbhari PW 11, went to leave the beddings  in<br \/>\nthe  Kotha in which Chandgi Ram was sleeping and  discovered<br \/>\nthat  a rope was tied round the neck of Chandgi Ram  and  he<br \/>\nwas  dead.   She  shouted  whereupon  Ramkauri,\t PW  7\t and<br \/>\nSharbati,  PW 14 rushed to that room.  Samander, one of\t the<br \/>\nappellants, followed and is reported to have untied the rope<br \/>\nfrom  the neck of the deceased Chandgi Ram and took it\taway<br \/>\nwith him.  Dhyala and Hanuman along with the wife of  Dhyala<br \/>\nalso  came there and all of them advised Ramkauri,  Manbhari<br \/>\nand Sharbati not to weep or make any noise as otherwise\t the<br \/>\npolice\tmight suspect them or harass them.  Some  villagers,<br \/>\nincluding neighbours, came to the house and the dead body of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">41<\/span><br \/>\nChandgi\t Ram  was brought out from his Kotha and  placed  on<br \/>\nstraws\tand  covered  by a cloth.  PW 13,  Ramdeo  Singh,  a<br \/>\nteacher, had also reached the house of the deceased at about<br \/>\n7  a.m. on August 13, 1972, which happened to be  a  Sunday.<br \/>\nAccording to him, he had seen a ligature mark on the neck of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  and  some  bleeding from\t the  left  ear\t and<br \/>\npresence   of  mucus  under  the  nose\tof   the   deceased.<br \/>\nSuspecting that the death of the deceased was unnatural,  he<br \/>\nsent  Jairam, PW 10 to the police station, Gudha  to  inform<br \/>\nthe  police.   Jairam PW 10 went to the police\tstation\t and<br \/>\naccording  to the Roznamacha entry D-6 recorded by the\tHead<br \/>\nMuharir,  he  gave information to the police to\t the  effect<br \/>\nthat  some  person  had\t died  in  the\tvillage\t Bugala\t  in<br \/>\nsuspicious   circumstances  without  naming  the   deceased.<br \/>\nSince,\tneither\t the  name of the  deceased  nor  any  other<br \/>\ndetails\t regarding the deceased were given, the\t report\t was<br \/>\nconsidered  to\tbe  vague  and incomplete  and\tno  FIR\t was<br \/>\nregistered  on\tthe  basis thereof.   In  the  meantime,  it<br \/>\nappears, the body of the deceased was taken to the cremation<br \/>\nground and cremated.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The  family members of Ramkauri, PW 7, the wife of  the<br \/>\ndeceased  on  hearing about the death came to the  house  of<br \/>\ntheir  daughter\t and  on August 17,  1972  Ramkauri,  PW  7,<br \/>\naccompanied  them  and went to her parental house.   She  is<br \/>\nreported  to have told them the story of the  previous\tday.<br \/>\nNext day i.e. on August 18, 1972 at about 8.30 a.m. FIR\t Ex.<br \/>\nP-3  was recorded at police station Gudha on the basis of  a<br \/>\nwritten\t complaint and the case under Sections\t302\/201\t IPC<br \/>\nwas  registered\t and investigation commenced.\tThe  accused<br \/>\npersons\t were  arrested and later tried as  noticed  in\t the<br \/>\nearlier part of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.There\t is  no direct evidence of murder in  this  case.<br \/>\nThe  circumstances under which the conviction under  Section<br \/>\n201 IPC has been recorded by the Sessions Judge and the High<br \/>\nCourt  alone need a notice at this stage, since\t the  charge<br \/>\nunder Section 302 IPC has in any case failed and there is no<br \/>\nappeal filed by the State against that acquittal.  The three<br \/>\ncircumstances which were pressed into aid by the prosecution<br \/>\nin  support of the charge under Section 201 IPC\t before\t the<br \/>\ntrial court and the High Court were-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   the\t condition  of\tthe  dead  body\t  as<br \/>\n\t      noticed  by the witnesses showed that  Chandgi<br \/>\n\t      Ram had been murdered;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)that the accused persons had taken  part<br \/>\n\t      in  giving bath to the dead body\teven  though<br \/>\n\t      they  were aware of the condition of the\tdead<br \/>\n\t      body and had not waited for the police;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii)that even though the accused were  asked<br \/>\n\t      to  wait for the arrival of the  police,\tthey<br \/>\n\t      were in a hurry to get the dead body  cremated<br \/>\n\t      and  despite protestations took away the\tbody<br \/>\n\t      for cremation and cremated the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6.Insofar  as the first two circumstances  are\tconcerned<br \/>\nsince  the charge under Section 302 IPC has failed it  pales<br \/>\ninto  significance, except the extent that  the\t prosecution<br \/>\nalleged that Chandgi Ram died an unnatural death and Jai Ram<br \/>\nPW  10 saw a ligature mark on the neck and according to\t the<br \/>\nwife and daughter of the deceased, Samander removed the rope<br \/>\nfrom the neck and took it away.\t Who did the rope belong to?<br \/>\nWhy  did the widow of the deceased not disclose to  Jai\t Ram<br \/>\nand other PWs, at the earliest opportunity about the removal<br \/>\nof the rope?  These questions have not been answered by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  and the witnesses have offered  no\t explanation<br \/>\nabout  them either.  Therefore, the mere fact  that  Chandgi<br \/>\nRam   allegedly\t died  an  unnatural  death  would  not\t  be<br \/>\nsufficient<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">42<\/span><br \/>\nto  bring  home a charge under Section 201 IPC,\t unless\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  was further able to establish that the  accused<br \/>\npersons\t knew or had reason to believe that an\toffence\t had<br \/>\nbeen  committed, causing the evidence of the  commission  of<br \/>\nthe offence to disappear.  We have gone through the evidence<br \/>\nof the witnesses produced by the prosecution in detail.\t The<br \/>\nwidow  of  the\tdeceased  Ramkauri, PW\t7  did\tnot  in\t her<br \/>\nstatement  state that she had seen any blood coming  out  of<br \/>\nthe  ear of the deceased.  Even with regard to the  question<br \/>\nof giving bath to the deceased by the accused persons she is<br \/>\nsilent\tin  her deposition, even though the brother  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased,  Basti, must have taken part in the giving of\t the<br \/>\nbath  to the dead body before cremation.  Manbhari,  PW\t 11,<br \/>\nthe  sister of the deceased did not disclose to\t the  police<br \/>\nthe  names of those who are alleged to have given a bath  to<br \/>\nthe  deceased  although\t she  tried  to\t improve  upon\t her<br \/>\nstatement  in  the  court by naming  the  acquitted  accused<br \/>\nbesides\t Dhyala and others as the persons as who  had  given<br \/>\nbath to the deceased.  We are not satisfied that it was only<br \/>\nthe appellants before this Court who participated in  giving<br \/>\nbath  to the deceased before cremation as according  to\t the<br \/>\nevidence  on record, many neighbours had joined in giving  a<br \/>\nbath to the deceased, which is customary before a dead\tbody<br \/>\nis  taken  for\tcremation.  Giving of  bath,  therefore,  by<br \/>\nitself\tcould not be treated as a circumstance, much less  a<br \/>\nclinching  one,\t to connect the appellants with\t an  offence<br \/>\nunder Section 201 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Coming now to the third circumstance relied upon by the<br \/>\nprosecution, Mr R.  Sasiprabhu,\t learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nState laid some emphasis on that circumstance in an  attempt<br \/>\nto  sustain the conviction of the appellant.   The  Division<br \/>\nBench  of the High Court had analysed this circumstance\t and<br \/>\nnoticed\t that the accused persons had made preparations\t for<br \/>\nthe cremation of the dead body and while Hanuman remained at<br \/>\nthe  house  Samander and Dhyala along with others  took\t the<br \/>\nbody to the cremation ground.  After having so noticed,\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench observed :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;As regards the evidence that has been adduced<br \/>\n\t      by the prosecution to prove that these accused<br \/>\n\t      persons  had rushed with the cremation of\t the<br \/>\n\t      dead body even though they were asked to\twait<br \/>\n\t      for  the arrival of the police, we  have\theld<br \/>\n\t      that reliance could not be placed on the\tsaid<br \/>\n\t      evidence.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.After recording the finding, that there was no material<br \/>\non  the record to show that the appellants had\trushed\twith<br \/>\nthe cremation of the dead body or that they removed the dead<br \/>\nbody  hurriedly,  the High Court observed  that\t there\twere<br \/>\nother  circumstance  to\t connect  the  appellants  with\t the<br \/>\noffence\t under\tSection 201 IPC.  However in vain;  have  we<br \/>\nsearched  through the judgment as also the evidence  on\t the<br \/>\nrecord,\t for  the  existence  of  those\t circumstance.\t The<br \/>\nevidence  on  the record is much too cryptic and  scanty  to<br \/>\nbring home the charge to the appellants for an offence under<br \/>\nSection\t 201  IPC as neither of\t the  circumstances,  either<br \/>\ntaken  individually or collectively connects the  appellants<br \/>\nwith  an offence under Section 201 IPC.\t  The  circumstances<br \/>\nrelied\tupon  by  the prosecution do not lead  only  to\t the<br \/>\nhypothesis  of\tthe  guilt  of\tthe  accused  and  are\t not<br \/>\ninconsistent  with  their innocence.   The  prosecution\t has<br \/>\nfailed to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC against<br \/>\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.We  find that both the learned Sessions Judge\t and  the<br \/>\nHigh  Court also overlooked another important aspect in\t the<br \/>\ncase.  Section 201 IPC reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">43<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;201.   Causing disappearance of\tevidence  of<br \/>\n\t      offence, or giving false information to screen<br \/>\n\t      offender.-  Whoever, knowing or having  reason<br \/>\n\t      to believe that an offence has been committed,<br \/>\n\t      causes any evidence of the commission of\tthat<br \/>\n\t      offence  to disappear, with the  intention  of<br \/>\n\t      screening the offender from legal\t punishment,<br \/>\n\t      or  with that intention gives any\t information<br \/>\n\t      respecting  the  offence\twhich  he  knows  or<br \/>\n\t      believes to be false.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      *\t       *      *\t\t\t  *\t\t *&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>10.A bare reading of the section would show that to  bring<br \/>\nhome  the charge, under Section 201 IPC the  prosecution  is<br \/>\nobliged\t to  establish that the accused\t knowing  or  having<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe that an offence had been  committed\t had<br \/>\ncaused\tthe  offence of the commission of  that\t offence  to<br \/>\ndisappear &#8220;with the intention of screening the offender from<br \/>\nlegal\tpunishment&#8221;  or\t with  that  intention\t given\t any<br \/>\ninformation  respecting\t the  offence,\twhich  he  knows  or<br \/>\nbelieves  to be false.\tNo finding has been recorded by\t the<br \/>\nSessions  Court\t or the High Court to the  effect  that\t all<br \/>\nthose  persons who gave bath to the dead body or  went\twith<br \/>\nthe  dead body to cremate it, did so &#8220;with the intention  of<br \/>\nscreening  the\toffender from  legal  punishment&#8221;.   Without<br \/>\nrecording  such a finding, no conviction under\tSection\t 201<br \/>\nIPC could be maintained.  In this respect it is pertinent to<br \/>\nnotice\tthat the High Court did not record any finding\tmuch<br \/>\nless clear or cogent to the effect that the deceased Chandgi<br \/>\nRam  had,  in  fact,  been  murdered  by  known\t or  unknown<br \/>\nassailants   and  that\tthe  appellants\t were\teither\t the<br \/>\nassailants   themselves\t or  in\t any  event  knew  who\t the<br \/>\nassailants  were.   Section  201 IPC, in  the  face  of\t the<br \/>\nmaterial on the record, could not be pressed into aid.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.Keeping  in\tview, what we have stated above,  we  find<br \/>\nthat the conviction of the appellants for the offence  under<br \/>\nSection\t  201  IPC  cannot  be\tsustained.    This   appeal,<br \/>\ntherefore,  succeeds  and is allowed.\tThe  conviction\t and<br \/>\nsentence of the appellants is set aside.  The appellants are<br \/>\non bail.  Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">44<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1307, 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 39 Author: A Anand Bench: Anand, A.S. (J) PETITIONER: HANUMAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/11\/1993 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 1307 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2227,\"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\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\",\"name\":\"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993","datePublished":"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993"},"wordCount":2227,"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\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993","name":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T11:05:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hanuman-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-25-november-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hanuman vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 1993"}]},{"@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\/4710","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=4710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}