{"id":47199,"date":"2005-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005"},"modified":"2016-03-31T17:21:33","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T11:51:33","slug":"narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arun Kumar, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  175 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nNarayan Prasad &amp; Ors.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of M.P.\t\t\t\t\t                   \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/11\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nArun Kumar &amp; A.K. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nW I T H :\n<\/p>\n<p>Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2000 <\/p>\n<p>A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tBoth these appeals are directed against the common<br \/>\njudgment dated 27.8.1999 passed by a Division Bench  of the<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur,  therefore they are<br \/>\ndisposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<p>These appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the<br \/>\nlearned Division Bench  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at<br \/>\nJabalpur dated 27.8.1999 wherein the learned Division Bench  has<br \/>\nreversed the acquittal of the accused persons and accepted the State<br \/>\nappeal and convicted the appellant namely Kishan Lal, Mihilal, Labru,<br \/>\nRamswaroop, Mukundi, Phulloo and Mustapha Khan for the offences<br \/>\nof dacoity and murder under Section 395 and 396 IPC and sentenced<br \/>\neach of them to life imprisonment on both  counts with fine of<br \/>\nRs.1000\/- each, in default of which they shall undergo further rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment for two years each. However Lalu, one of the accused,<br \/>\ndied  during the  pendency of appeal in High Court as such appeal<br \/>\nabated against him due to his death.  Learned Division Bench  also<br \/>\nconvicted Abbas Khan, Rahim Khan and Narayan Prasad under<br \/>\nSection 412 IPC and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment<br \/>\nfor 10 years each and fine of Rs.2000\/- each in default they will<br \/>\nfurther suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each.  Aggrieved<br \/>\nagainst the aforesaid order appeals have been filed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused<br \/>\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these<br \/>\nappeals are that the FIR was lodged by one Ram Kishore, PW-3 at<br \/>\n1.40 p.m. at P.S. Barahi.  It is alleged that he was sleeping in the<br \/>\nParchhi of the house while his wife Sushila was sleeping in the inner<br \/>\nroom of which the doors had been chained from the outside.  At<br \/>\nabout mid night he noticed 3 persons tying his feet.  He woke up and<br \/>\nsat down.  One person was lighting a torch and another was tying his<br \/>\nfeet.  The third was hitting him with a hunter(Koda).  Then two<br \/>\npersons entered the room after opening the chain.  One person ran<br \/>\nout of the house and exploded some bomb and again approached<br \/>\nhim and started hitting him.  After sometime this man went to some<br \/>\ndistance,  therefore, he opened his rope and ran to the house of Bare<br \/>\nGond.  Along with Bare Gond he went to the Basti of Dhimars and<br \/>\nreturned along with about 20 persons.  He then saw three persons<br \/>\nrunning towards the village.  Many other persons from the village had<br \/>\nalso come there and they chased the miscreants but returned without<br \/>\ncatching anybody.  On reaching home he noticed his wife tied with<br \/>\nrope and was bleeding from her head.  The rope had been tied<br \/>\naround her neck also and she was unconscious. She ultimately<br \/>\nsuccumbed  to injuries. The box was found open and ornaments of<br \/>\ngold and silver were found missing.  The details of gold ornaments,<br \/>\nsliver ornaments and other valuable articles were furnished by him.<br \/>\nHowever, no specific name was mentioned in the FIR.  After<br \/>\nrecovering from shock,  he gave the further  list of the gold and other<br \/>\nvaluable articles missing from his house.  The police took up  the<br \/>\ninvestigation and during the course of the investigation they caught<br \/>\nhold of the accused and they were got identified by Ram Kishore,<br \/>\ncomplainant.  It was alleged that there was one more identifying<br \/>\nwitness that is Ram Naresh but he was not examined as a witness in<br \/>\ncourt.  The various test identification memos Ex.P-5 to P-15 were<br \/>\nprepared identifying the articles which were recovered from various<br \/>\nplaces on the disclosure made by the accused persons.  Accused Mr.<br \/>\nKishan Lal made a disclosure statement ex.P-23 on 20.10.1982<br \/>\nwhich led to the recovery of 6 silver lachha and one hunter in his<br \/>\nvillage and further led to the recovery of one pair of silver Bagaliya<br \/>\nand one Dhagaliya chikni.  These articles were identified by PW- 3<br \/>\nRam Kishore before Naib Tehsildar PW-6 Nirmal Tigga as well as by<br \/>\nPW- 20 Kammobai.  Likewise a recovery was made from the Phulloo,<br \/>\nMihilal, Ramswaroop, Abbas Khan, Narayan Prasad, Labru,<br \/>\nMustapha, Rahim Khan, Lalwa @ Makbhool, Mukundi  @ Munanuar.<br \/>\nAll these articles recovered at the instance of these accused persons<br \/>\nwere duly identified by  PW-3 Ram Kishore in identification parade<br \/>\nbefore  Naib Tahsildar.  Learned Division Bench has detailed all<br \/>\nthese recoveries as well as identification by Ram Kishore  &amp;<br \/>\nKammobai,  therefore,  no  useful purpose will be served by giving<br \/>\nout them in detail here.\n<\/p>\n<p>PW-6 Naib Tehsildar Nirmal Tigga has appeared in witness box<br \/>\nand has proved the identification memos.  Shri R.N. Tiwari, the<br \/>\nInvestigation Officer has given out the detail about the information<br \/>\ngiven by  the accused persons and the recoveries made thereof.<br \/>\nInvestigation was made by the investigation officer from 20.10.82 to<br \/>\n25.10.82.  The accused denied the information given by them which<br \/>\nled to the recovery but they did not claim the ornaments.  However,<br \/>\nthe accused Narayan Prasad asserted that the police took from him 2<br \/>\npairs of Bagaliya, 2 pairs of Payal, 2 lachhas, patti, Addhi, these<br \/>\nbelonged to him and he had purchased them from Raghuveer on a<br \/>\nreceipt.  He alleged that Thanedar had asked him for a motorcycle<br \/>\nwhich he declined, so he has been falsely implicated.  The important<br \/>\nfeatures in this case is that PW-10 Chanderbhan,  PW-11<br \/>\nRamnarayan Gupta,  the  recovery witnesses who have  turned<br \/>\nhostile.  They did not support the testimony of the prosecution case<br \/>\nwith regard to recoveries.  Learned Division Bench  held that though<br \/>\nthese  persons have turned hostile nonetheless the recovery of these<br \/>\nornaments of large quantity cannot be planted by the police and<br \/>\nsecondly that these ornaments were not claimed by the accused<br \/>\npersons except Narayan Prasad. The trial Judge disbelieved the<br \/>\nprosecution version &amp; acquitted  them but in appeal the High Court<br \/>\nhad reversed the acquittal of these persons  and held  that the<br \/>\nrecoveries of these huge quantity of ornaments which were not<br \/>\nclaimed by the accused persons (except Narayan Prasad) is self-<br \/>\nevident and learned Division Bench after reviewing  all the evidence<br \/>\nof the recovery as well as the identification,  felt persuaded that<br \/>\naccused persons are guilty and accordingly convicted  as aforesaid.<br \/>\nHence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant has informed us that out of<br \/>\nappellants, 3 more appellants  died during pendency of appeal,  viz.<br \/>\nRamswaroop,  Phulloo and Mustafa Khan.  So far as Lalu was<br \/>\nconcerned, he died during  the  pendency of appeal before the High<br \/>\nCourt as such appeal qua him stood abated.  Accused  Ramswaroop,<br \/>\nPhulloo &amp; Mustapha Khan died during the pendency of this appeal<br \/>\nhere,  the appeal qua these appellants also stand abated.  Hence, the<br \/>\npresent appeal against remaining accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged before<br \/>\nus that the information as well as the recovery which is crucial in this<br \/>\ncase were not supported by the independent witnesses, therefore the<br \/>\nview taken by the learned Division Bench cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in<br \/>\nview of the fact that the PW-10 Chanderbhan and PW-11<br \/>\nRamnarayan both were recovery and identifying witnesses turned<br \/>\nhostile, therefore the information and recovery do not stand proved.<br \/>\nIt is also submitted that identification was done before Naib Tehsildar<br \/>\nNirmal Tigga but the evidence of Naib Tehsildar also does not inspire<br \/>\nconfidence and his evidence does not disclose that whether the<br \/>\nornaments of similar nature were mixed up or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>  We have considered the testimonies of all these witnesses.<br \/>\nWe have gone through the evidence of investigation officer  Shri R.N.<br \/>\nTiwari (PW-4) as well as Naib Tehsildar  Nirmal Tigga PW-6, Gulraj<br \/>\nSingh (PW-23) as well as the testimony of Kammobai (PW-20) and<br \/>\nRam Kishore (PW-3).  Statement of these witnesses read together,<br \/>\nestablishes guilty of these  accused   persons despite recovery<br \/>\nwitnesses turn hostile. The testimony of Ram Kishore (PW-3) and<br \/>\nKammobai (PW-20) who is  worthy of credit and there is no reason to<br \/>\ndisbelieve them.  Since Sushila Bai wife of PW-3 Ram Kishore died<br \/>\nbecause of the assault by dacoit  PW-20  Kammobai wife of brother<br \/>\nof Ram Kishore has identified the ornaments.  Likewise, PW-3 Ram<br \/>\nKishore has identified the accused persons at the time of<br \/>\nidentification parade  therefore the testimony of all these witneses<br \/>\nsupport the prosecution case.    In cases of such dacoity  at mid night<br \/>\nit takes little time for the prosecution to collect evidence as  they have<br \/>\nto interrogate many people during the course of the investigation to<br \/>\nnab the real culprit.  It is also not unlikely that witnesses fear dacoits,<br \/>\nthey shirk to come out and support the prosecution case.  But the fact<br \/>\nis that the recovery which has been effected at the instance of the<br \/>\naccused persons have not been claimed  by accused persons except<br \/>\nNarayan Prasad.  However, Narayan Prasad has claimed that these<br \/>\nwere purchased by him under a receipt.  We will deal the cases of<br \/>\nthese three accused persons in the appeal No.175 of 2000 at a later<br \/>\nstage.  So far as the accused persons in the appeal 177 of 2000 is<br \/>\nconcerned, they were charged under Sections 395 and 396 and none<br \/>\nof these accused has claimed this property which has been<br \/>\nrecovered at their instance.  It is also unlikely that the police will plant<br \/>\nthese ornaments so as to implicate these accused persons. some<br \/>\ndelay in identification parade or identification of property is likely in<br \/>\ncases of dacoity at mid night and the recovery of the ornaments.  The<br \/>\ndelay is natural in such cases,  it is not  fatal as to throw the<br \/>\nprosecution case outright.  We failed to understand  the reasoning<br \/>\ngiven by the learned trial  court as it has proceeded purely on<br \/>\nmechanical way and threw the prosecution case.  The fact that the<br \/>\nrecovery of these huge quantity of the ornaments have been made at<br \/>\nthe instance of the accused persons duly  identified  by PW 10 &amp; PW-<br \/>\n20  and there is no possibility of planting the case against the<br \/>\naccused persons by the police.  Delay in recovery in  such cases is<br \/>\nnot unusual.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by<br \/>\nlearned Division Bench  has correctly found accused persons guilty<br \/>\nand there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNow coming to the three accused persons namely, Narayan<br \/>\nPrasad, Rahim Khan and Abbas Khan under Section 412 IPC for the<br \/>\nreceiver of the stolen property pertaining to dacoity and their being<br \/>\nsentenced to ten years imprisonment.  We are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthere  is no evidence to show that these accused persons had full<br \/>\nknowledge that the ornaments purchased by them were of subject to<br \/>\ndacoity.  These ornaments were recovered from them and Narayan<br \/>\nPrasad has claimed the property as purchased from some person<br \/>\nunder receipt but that person has not been examined as a defence<br \/>\nwitness.  Therefore all these accused persons can at best be charged<br \/>\nunder Section 411 IPC for receiver of stolen property.  Therefore we<br \/>\nconvert their offence from 412 IPC to 411 IPC and reduce their<br \/>\nsentence and punish them with  imprisonment for three years instead<br \/>\nof 10 years under Section 412 IPC.  Therefore the appeal No.175 of<br \/>\n2000 is partly accepted and accused Narayan Prasad, Rahim Khan<br \/>\nand Abbas Khan are convicted and sentenced for a period of three<br \/>\nyears under Section 411 IPC.  They are on bail, their bail bonds<br \/>\nshould be cancelled and they should immediately be arrested and<br \/>\nsent to jail to serve out their remaining sentences.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNow coming to the appeal No.177 of 2000 against accused<br \/>\nKishan Lal, Mihilal, and Mukundi, the conviction and sentence<br \/>\nordered by the learned Division Bench  is maintained.  The appeal of<br \/>\nappellants;  Ramswaroop, Phulloo, Mustapha  Khan stand abated as<br \/>\nthey have died during pendency of this appeal.  The accused are on<br \/>\nbail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they should be sent to jail to<br \/>\nserve out their remaining sentences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 Author: A Mathur Bench: Arun Kumar, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 175 of 2000 PETITIONER: Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: State of M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/11\/2005 BENCH: Arun Kumar &amp; A.K. MATHUR JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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-47199","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>Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - 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\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T11:51:33+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T11:51:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1988,\"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\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\",\"name\":\"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T11:51:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - 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\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T11:51:33+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T11:51:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005"},"wordCount":1988,"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\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005","name":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T11:51:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-prasad-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-8-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayan Prasad &amp; Ors vs State Of M.P on 8 November, 2005"}]},{"@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\/47199","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=47199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}