{"id":48502,"date":"2004-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004"},"modified":"2018-05-11T16:50:15","modified_gmt":"2018-05-11T11:20:15","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  952-953 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. SABHARWAL & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1390-91 of 2004]
\nWith
\nCriminal Appeal No. 954-955\t\tof 2004
\n[arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.  2320-2321 of 2004]
\nSatish Kaur Sahani  …..Appellant\n<\/p>\n
– Versus –\n<\/p>\n
Jagmohan  Singh Kuldip Singh Anand &  Ors……Respondent<\/p>\n
Dharmadhikari J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in all the above cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State and the complainant seek setting aside of the order dated
\n7.8.2003 of the High Court of Bombay reversing the judgment of conviction
\nof the trial court and the appellate court passed against the respondent-
\naccused for alleged offence under Section 324 and 452 read with Section 34,
\nIndian Penal Code and sentencing them to one month simple imprisonment
\nand fine of Rs.500\/-, in default simple imprisonment for seven days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts leading to prosecution of the accused and their conviction
\nand eventual acquittal by the High Court are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\tComplainant Smt. Satish Kaur Sahni and the convicted accused reside
\nin different flats in the same building in Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is alleged that on 3.5.1990 there was a quarrel between complainant
\nand the accused on cleaning of drainage.  On the same day, i.e., 3.5.1990 at
\nabout 8.30 in the night when the complainant was in her house with her son
\nManpreet Sahni (PW-3), all five accused are alleged to have entered the
\nhouse of the complainant with stick, aluminum rod and tape-recorder
\ncassettes. They started beating the complainant with fists and rods, tape-
\nrecorder and cassettes.  Jyoti Ahuja (PW-2) who stays in the neighbour-hood
\ntried to intervene but one of the accused (Bhupinder) gave a blow to her on
\nthe nose and she fell down.  It is also alleged that the accused dragged the
\ncomplainant out of her house and repeatedly beat her.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the same night, at 9.30, a complaint was lodged in Khar Police
\nStation which was registered as FIR.  The complainant was referred for
\nmedical treatment to Bhabha Hospital where Dr. Kamble medically
\nexamined her.  Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani (PW-4) was examined to prove
\nthe medical report in which it is recorded that four simple injuries were
\nfound on the body of complainant including on her hands, forehead and
\nchest.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe occupants of the building, where the incident had taken place,
\nsent on 6.5.1990 a written complaint jointly signed by them to the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Police requesting for a stern action against the accused for
\ntheir high-handed acts of trespassing into the house of the complainant and
\nbrutally assaulting her.  In all, five persons of the family of the accused were
\nalleged to have participated in the incident which included parents,
\nKuldeep Anand, Bhagwant Kaur Anand and their three sons, Jagmohan
\nAnand, Harminder Anand and Bhupinder Anand.  The prosecution
\nexamined the complainant (PW-1), Jyoti Ahuja (PW-2), the neighbour who
\nwas present at the time of incident, son of the complainant Manpreet Sahni
\n(PW-3) and Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani (PW-4) who proved the medical
\nreport.  The Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5.  The accused
\nabjured the guilt and took the defence by examining DW-1 Abraham
\nSamson Medhekar of their false involvement in the crime because of the
\npast enmity between the families on a dispute over chit-fund scheme.  The
\naccused also attributed motive to the complaint of falsely implicating them
\nwith the alleged incident because they were able to purchase a property at a
\ncompetitive price which the complainant wanted to purchase.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial Court, being the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, by its judgment 23.1.2001 acquitted the parents i.e. father
\naccused No.1 and mother, accused No.5.  On the basis of the evidence
\nbefore him, the trial magistrate convicted the three accused 2, 3 and 4 and
\nsentenced each one of them to one month of simple imprisonment and a
\nfine of Rs. 500\/- with seven days simple imprisonment in default of
\npayment of fine.  The magistrate came to the conclusion that the oral
\nevidence of Manpreet Sahani is duly corroborated by prompt FIR and the
\nmedical report.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused preferred
\ncriminal appeal in the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay.  The Appeal
\nJudge re-examined the evidence and by order dated 25.6.2002 upheld
\nconviction and sentence of the three accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused thereafter approached the High Court by way of criminal
\nrevision under Section 397 CrPC. The High Court by the impugned
\njudgment dated 7.8.2003 minutely re-examined and re-appreciated the
\nwhole evidence.  It came to contrary conclusion and acquitted the three
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court,
\nState of Maharashtra and the complainant have preferred these appeals by
\nseeking leave.  We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State of
\nMaharashtra and learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi for the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the State, learned counsel points out from the relevant
\nevidence on record that the High Court has overlooked vital evidence
\nshowing full implication of the accused and wrongly acquitted them by
\nentering into re-appreciation of evidence.  It is argued that the High Court
\nexceeded its powers of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the accused, learned Senior Counsel Shri Tulsi made
\nstrenuous effort to support the judgment of acquittal passed by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
\nlooked into the relevant evidence on record.  In our considered opinion the
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay exceeded his revisional
\njurisdiction by embarking upon in-depth re-examination of the oral and
\nmedical evidence.  Most surprisingly, the High Court has come to a
\nconclusion, contrary to the consistent one reached by the two courts, that
\nthe happening of the incident, as alleged, appears to be doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe need not go into all the reasonings and logic adopted by the
\nlearned Single Judge in acquitting the accused.  In our opinion, mention of
\nonly two glaring facts would be sufficient to show that the High Court was
\napparently in gross error in upsetting the judgment of conviction passed by
\nthe Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court who were the courts
\nessentially required to assess the worth of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is a copy of the medical certificate on record issued by the
\ndoctor in the hospital who examined the complainant.  It gives details of the
\ninjuries sustained by her.  The medical certificate is dated 3.5.1990 recorded <\/p>\n
at 8.45 PM. There is clear mention in the certificate of the patient having
\nbeen referred by Police Constable No. 12219 of Khar Police Station.  This
\nmedical certificate, as proved by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Advani, is ample proof
\nof happening of alleged incident of mar-peet with the complainant on
\n3.5.1990.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Single Judge of the High Court, in acquitting the accused,
\ngave great importance to the fact that joint complaint submitted on 6.5.1990
\nby the occupants of the building under their signatures to the Deputy
\nCommissioner of Police does not stand proved as none of the signatories
\nwas examined as a witness in the trial.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the State points out that the defence witness
\nAbraham Samson Medhekar (DW-1) examined by the accused themselves
\nwas one of the twelve signatories to the said complaint made to the DCP.
\nWhen confronted with copy of the complaint the witness (DW-1) had
\nadmitted its contents and his own signature.  He, however, denied that the
\nsaid complaint was forwarded to DCP.  The statement of DW-1 in cross-
\nexamination itself therefore proves the fact of such incident to have taken
\nplace on the date alleged.\n<\/p>\n
\tSimilarly, it is not possible for us to approve the reasoning of learned
\nSingle Judge on the aspect of common intention under Section 34 IPC.  For
\nestablishing ‘common intention’ in every case it is not required for the
\nprosecution to prove a pre-arranged plot or prior concert.  As has been
\nproved by the prosecution witnesses, on the dispute on cleaning of drain
\nwhich took place in the early hours on the date of alleged incident, the
\naccused party which constitute members of one family barged into the
\nhouse of the complainant, man-handled her inside and dragged her out
\nwhere she was beaten repeatedly.  The act alleged against the accused
\nclearly makes out a case of ‘common intention’ against them in committing
\noffence of house trespass and causing hurt to the complainant.  Similarly,
\nthe High Court after minutely scrutinizing the evidence gave undue
\nimportance to minor discrepancies such as use of tape-recorder and
\ncassettes in assaulting and no corresponding injuries from those articles to
\nhave been caused to the complainant.  There may be some exaggeration of
\nthe version of the incident by the complainant as she said that she was given
\nhundred blows.  Such exaggeration does not falsify the happening of the
\nalleged incident.  Similarly, the neighbour (PW-2) who had intervened and
\nwas hit on the nose was not medically examined is also not such a lapse of
\nprosecution to doubt credibility of the whole prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe defence of false implication due to alleged incident of the
\ncomplainant having not been able to purchase some property in
\ncompetition with the accused party had not taken place in the immediate
\npast.  It could not be a ground to falsely implicate the accused after such a
\nlong period.  Such defence plea based on alleged motive of the complainant
\nis also unacceptable when the specific defence taken through deposition of
\nDW-1 was involvement of complainant in the chit-fund business and
\nalleged grudge over it with the accused party.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn embarking upon the minutest re-examination of the whole
\nevidence at the revisional stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was
\ntotally oblivious of the self-restraint that he was required to exercise in a
\nrevision under Section 397 CrPC.  On behalf of the accused, reliance is
\nplaced on the decision of this Court to which one of us (Justice  Sabharwal)
\nis a party, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004
\n[Ram Briksh v. Ambika Yadav<\/a>].  That was the case in which the High Court
\ninterfered in revision because material evidence was overlooked by the
\ncourts below.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers
\nconferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in
\nSection 410 CrPC.  Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Court
\nto exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of
\nsuperintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on
\nthe High Court or the Sessions Court.   Section 397 CrPC confers power on
\nthe High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, “for the purpose of
\nsatisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any
\nfinding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of
\nany proceeding of such inferior court.”  It is for the above purpose, if
\nnecessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate
\npowers.  Section 401 CrPC conferring powers of Appellate Court on the
\nRevisional Court is with the above limited purpose.  The provisions
\ncontained in Section 395 to Section 401 CrPC, read together, do not indicate
\nthat the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second
\nappellate power.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to and rely on the decision of
\nthis court in Dulichand vs. Delhi Administration [AIR 1975 SC 1960] in
\nwhich it is observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory
\njurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would
\nhave been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the
\nevidence for the purposes of determining whether the
\nconcurrent finding of fact reached by the learned
\nMagistrate and the learned additional Sessions Judge was
\ncorrect.  But even so the High Court reviewed the evidence
\npresumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there
\nwas evidence in support of the finding of fact reached  by
\nthe two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was
\nnot unreasonable or perverse. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is necessary to note that in the case of Dulichand (supra) the High
\nCourt had re-appreciated the whole evidence and confirmed the findings of
\nthe two courts below.    This Court, therefore, did not interfere with them.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, find that there were no grounds available with the
\nHigh Court to upset the verdict of conviction and sentence passed by the
\ntwo courts and direct acquittal of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, these appeals are allowed, the judgment of acquittal
\npassed by the High Court by order dated 7.8.2003 is set aside and conviction
\nand sentence passed by the Magistrate as confirmed by the Additional
\nSessions Judge is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the
\nincident is of the year 1990.  The parties are educated and neighbours.  The
\nlearned counsel, therefore, prayed that benefit of Probation of Offenders
\nAct, 1958 may be granted to the accused.  The prayer made on behalf of the
\naccused seems to be reasonable.  The incident is more than 10 years old.
\nThe dispute was between the neighbours over a trivial issue of cleaning of
\ndrainage.  The incident took place in a fit of anger.  All the parties are
\neducated and also distantly related.  The incident is not such as to direct the
\naccused to undergo sentence of imprisonment.  In our opinion, it is a fit case
\nin which the accused should be released on Probation by directing them to
\nexecute a bond of one year for good behaviour.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, the acquittal passed by the High Court is set aside and
\nconviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate, as confirmed by the
\nSessions Judge, is maintained by directing that the accused be released on
\nProbation on their executing bond for good behaviour for a period of one
\nyear, to the satisfaction of the trial judge.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 952-953 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT: Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2004 BENCH: Y.K. SABHARWAL & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-48502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-11T11:20:15+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T11:20:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2304,\"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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T11:20:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-11T11:20:15+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T11:20:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004"},"wordCount":2304,"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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand ... on 27 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T11:20:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-jagmohan-singh-kuldip-singh-anand-on-27-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand … on 27 August, 2004"}]},{"@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\/48502","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=48502"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48502\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}