{"id":48843,"date":"1973-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973"},"modified":"2018-01-28T04:42:37","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T23:12:37","slug":"ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","title":{"rendered":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1188, \t\t 1973 SCR (3) 463<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMNARAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 1188\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 463\n 1973 SCC  (3) 805\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1991 SC1463\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tPenal Code-Accused convicted under s. 467 and  120B-\nApplication under s. 561-A of the Cr.  P. C. not considered-\nWhether there was grave miscarriage of justice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was alleged to have entered into a  conspiracy\nwith others, to persuade members of the public to part\twith\nmoney for purchasing residential plots in a village,  'Khand\nGawadi'\t and  in furtherence of this conspiracy,  they\twere\nalleged\t to  have forged sale proceedings  pattas,  and\t the\nsignatures  of others on such pattas and  sale\tproceedings.\nThe appellant himself affixed his signatures as Sarpanch and\nput  the  seat\tof  the\t village  panchayat  on\t the  forged\ndocuments.  The trial court held the appellant guilty of the\noffences of conspiracy under s. 120-B and he was also  found\nguilty of the offences under s. 467 1. P. C. On appeal\tthe\nHigh  Court  confirmed the appellant's\tconviction  on\tboth\nthese  counts,\tbut reduced his sentence.   The\t appellant's\ngrievance  before this Court was that  non-consideration  of\nhis  application  under s. 561-A Cr.  P.C.  dated  April  7,\n1970, which was filed on May 1, 1970, but neither listed nor\nbeard and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.\t  On\n18th  May  1970,  the Hon'ble High Court made  an  order  as\nfollows : \"Perused application dated 7-4-1970 and 30-4-1970.\n1  have\t decided  the  case  on\t 17-4-1970  and\t there\t is,\ntherefore,  no\tquestion of saying anything  on\t the  merits\nnow\".  The second point strongly presented by the  appellant\nis  that the appellants conviction was based solely  on\t the\ntestimony  of P.W. 1, the approver, whose evidence  has\t not\nbeen corroborated in material parts.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD:\t  (i)  The  application\t under s.  561-A  Cr.\tP.C.\nshould\thave been disposed of after hearing the\t appellant's\ncounsel\t and its disposal without such hearing\twas  clearly\nwrong  and  unjust.   The appellant  has  a  just  grievance\nagainst\t the manner in which this application  was  disposed\nof.  He had a right to be afforded a reasonable\t opportunity\nof  being  heard  in support of\t his  application,  and\t the\ndisposal  of this case in the chamber of the  learned  judge\nwithout\t giving him such opportunity cannot  be\t appreciated\n[469H]\n(ii) Section  133  of  the Indian  Evidence  Act,  expressly\nprovides  that an accomplice is a competent witness and\t the\nconviction  is\tnot illegal merely because  it\tproceeds  on\nuncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.  But this Section\nhas to read along with illustration (b) to s. 114.   Section\n114  empowers the court to presume the existence of  certain\nfacts  and  the illustrations elucidate what the  court\t may\npresume.  Illustration (b) in express terms says : 'that  an\naccomplice  is unworthy of credit unless he is\tcorroborated\nin  material  particulars.   The statute  thus\tpermits\t the\nconviction  of\tan  accused  person  on\t the  basis  of\t un-\ncorroborated testimony of army accomplice.  But the rule  of\nprudence  embodied in Illustration (b) of s. 114  strikes  a\nnote of warning that the court will not generally believe an\naccomplice  unless  be is corroborated\tin  material  parts.\nThis rule is guided by long experience and has become a rule\nof prudence for general application. [470C-G]\n464\n(iii)\t  So  far as the charge under s. 120-B, 1.  P.C.  is\nconcerned,  in\talmost\tevery  case  of\t conspiracy,  it  is\ngenerally a matter of inference, direct independent evidence\nbeing seldom.  Inferences are normally deduced from acts  of\nparties in pursuance of apparent criminal purpose in  common\nbetween them.  In the present case, the only evidence is  of\nthe  approver  and the trial court expressly  observed\tthat\nthere is no other direct evidence of conspiracy.   Therefore\nthe  charge  of\t conspiracy cannot  be\tsustained  from\t the\nevidence available. [475G-476B]\nIn   the  present  case,  on  the  existing  evidence,\t the\nappellants   conviction\t under\ts.467  I.P.C.\twas   wholly\nunsustainable.\t Therefore, the appellants' conviction\tmust\nbe set aside. [475F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 105 of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nApril 17, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in  S.
\nB. Cr. Appeal No. 283 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Nuruddin  Ahmad\t F.  S. Dave and Subhag Mal  Jain,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDUA, J.-In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of
\nthe  Rajasthan High Court Ram Narain, appellant,  challenges
\nhis  conviction\t for the offences under ss.  467  and  120B,
\nI.P.C. He,, along with three others, had been committed\t for
\ntrial  in the court of Sessions Judge, Kota on\tten  charges
\nfor offences under ss. 467, 468, 420 and 120B, I.P.C. It  is
\nnot  necessary\tto reproduce all the charges  and  it  would
\nsuffice\t if  we set out the charges under S. 467  and  120B,
\nI.P.C.,\t because by the impugned judgment of the High  Court
\nthe  appellant’s  conviction was sustained only\t on  charges
\nunder these two sections.  Those charges are :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  That you between the months  of  November,
\n\t      1959  to\tJanuary,  1960,\t at  your  house  at
\n\t      Dadvada\tentered\t into  a   conspiracy\twith
\n\t      Sarvashri Madan Mohan, Badriprasad and  Bakshi
\n\t\t\t    Gajpatsingh\t and others, to commit off
\nences  of
\n\t\t\t    forgery  using forged documents as gen
\nuine  and
\n\t      of  cheating the public, Municipal  Board\t and
\n\t      the Government in respect of the sale of\tsome
\n\t      pieces  of land belonging earlier to the\tGram
\n\t      Panchayat Khandgawari in favour of  Moolsingh,
\n\t      Mukatbeharilal and Surajsingh and that you did
\n\t      some act to wit forged the Proceedings of\t the
\n\t      Pattas in favour of the above said persons and
\n\t      the  signatures and the thumb impressions,  of
\n\t      the Panchas of the defunct Gram Panchayat\t and
\n\t      made  false  entries in the Cash Book  of\t the
\n\t      said Panchayat of ;he year 1957-58 at pages 42
\n\t      and 45 and affixed the
\n\t      465<\/span>
\n\t      seal  of\tthat  Gram Panchayat  and  put\tyour
\n\t      signatures on the Pattas so forged, all in the
\n\t      capacity\t of  the  Surpanch  of\t that\tGram
\n\t      Panchayat\t besides  agreement  to\t commit\t the
\n\t      offences\tunder sections 457, 468 and 420,  of
\n\t      the    I.P.C.   punishable    with    rigorous
\n\t      imprisonment  for over two years\tand  thereby
\n\t      committed an offence punishable under  section
\n\t      120B of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
\n\t      (2)   That during the same period, you  forged
\n\t      Patta  proceedings in antedates in respect  of
\n\t      the sale of land 30’X35′ belonging earlier  to
\n\t      the  defunct  Gram  Panchayat  Kandgaonri\t  in
\n\t      favour  of  Shri Surajsingh and put  your\t own
\n\t      signatures  on the forged document  purporting
\n\t      to  be valuable security to wit, the patta  in
\n\t      favour  of  Surajsingh  and gave\tit  to\tShri
\n\t      Surajsingh  and that you thereby committed  an
\n\t      offence  punishable under section 467, of\t the
\n\t      I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
\n\t      (5)   That during the same period, you  forged
\n\t      patta  proceedings in antedates in respect  of
\n\t      the sale of land 50’X 50′ belonging earlier to
\n\t      the  defunct  Gram  Panchayat  Khandgaonri  in
\n\t      favour of Mukat Behari and put your signatures
\n\t      on  the  forged document purporting  to  be  a
\n\t      valuable\tsecurity to wit the patta in  favour
\n\t      of  Mukat Beharilal and gave it to Shri  Mukat
\n\t      Behari  and  that\t you  thereby  committed  an
\n\t      offence  punishable under section 467  of\t the
\n\t      Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
\n\t      (8)   That  during the same period you  forged
\n\t      patta  proceedings in antedates in respect  of
\n\t      the sale of land 30’X30′ belonging earlier  to
\n\t      the  defunct  Gram Panchayat  Khandgaonri,  in
\n\t      favour  of  Shri Moolsingh and  put  your\t own
\n\t      signatures on, the forged document  purporting
\n\t      to  be valuable security to with the patta  in
\n\t      favour  of Shri Moolsingh and gave it to\tShri
\n\t      Moolsingh\t and that you thereby  committed  an
\n\t      offence  punishable under section 467  of\t the
\n\t      I.P.C. and within my cognizance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Village Khand Gawadi had before October, 1958 a panchayat of
\nwhich  Gangaram (P.W. 3) was the Sarpanch and the  appellant
\nits  Up-Sarpanch.  In the months of April and May, 19S8\t the
\nappellant  officiated  for the Sarpanch because\t the  latter
\n(Gangaram)  was\t busy  in  connection  with  his  daughter’s
\nmarriage.  By means of a gazette notification (No. 1128 8\/F.
\n1  (a) 48L 59\/A\/55 dated 16-10-58) the Rajasthan  Government
\nextended the limits of the municipal council, Kota,  amongst
\nother villages, to Khand
\n466<\/span>
\nGawadi\talso.  The Municipal Council took over\tcharge\tfrom
\nthe  Gram  Panchayat  of this village on  January  7,  1959.
\nAccording  to the prosecution version during the  months  of
\nNovember,  1959\t to January, 1960, long\t after\tthe  village
\npanchayat had ceased to exist, the appellant entered into  a
\nconspiracy with the other accused persons (tried along\twith
\nhim  in\t the sessions court) and Bhanwarlal son\t of  Bapulal
\n(who became an approver and appeared as P.W. 1 in the  case)
\nto  cheat the members of the public, the Municipal  Council,
\nKota  and the Government.  The modus operandi  for  carrying
\nout  the  object  of this conspiracy was  to  persuade\tsuch
\nmembers\t of the public as were amenable to their  persuasion
\nto  part  with\tmoney for purchasing  residential  plots  in
\nvillage Khand Gawadi; and in furtherance of this  conspiracy
\nthey forged sale proceedings and pattas by ante-dating\tthem
\nand  forging signatures of the other Panchas on such  pattas
\nand  sale  proceedings.\t The appellant himself\taffixed\t his
\nsignatures  as\tSarpanch  and put the seal  of\tthe  village
\nPanchayat  on  the  forged  documents.\t The  trial,  as  is
\nobvious, from the charges reproduced above, was confined  to
\nthe sale proceedings and pattas in the names of Mool  Singh,
\nMukat  Beharilal and Suraj Singh.  Bhanwarlal (P.W. 1),\t who
\nwas also stated to have been a party to this conspiracy\t was
\ngranted\t pardon and having become an approver appeared as  a
\nwitness in support of the prosecution.\tThe Sessions  Judge,
\nafter considering the prosecution evidence and the  evidence
\nof the defence witnesses, produced by the appellant,  upheld
\nthe  prosecution case against the appellant holding that  he
\nand  the approver, Bhanwarlal, had joined hands\t in  forging
\nthe sale proceedings and pattas mentioned in the charges and
\nalso in forging thereon the signatures of the other Panchas.
\nIn fact, according to the trial court, it was the  appellant
\nwho  had dragged Bhanwarlal into ‘the conspiracy  and  their
\nactivities were motivated by a desire to cheat the Municipal
\nCouncil, Kota, the members of the public and the  Government
\nof  Rajasthan by making them part with possession  of  their
\nvaluable land in village Khand Gawadi for nominal Drice.  On
\nthis  finding  the offence of conspiracy under s.  120B\t was
\nheld proved against the appellant.  He was also held  guilty
\nof the offence under s. 467, I.P.C. Charges under the  other
\nsections   were\t  held\tnot  proved.   The   appellant\t was
\naccordingly  sentenced\tto rigorous imprisonment  for  three
\nyears  and a fine of Rs. 200 under s. 120B and\tto  rigorous
\nimprisonment  for two years and a fine of Rs. 200  under  s.
\n467, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine the appellant\t was
\ndirected   to\tundergo\t  six\tmonths’\t  further   rigorous
\nimprisonment  in each case.  Both the substantive  sentences
\nwere  directed to be concurrent.  The other accused  persons
\nBakshi\tGajpat\tSingh,\tMadan Mohan and\t Badri\tPrasad\twere
\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n
On appeal the High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction
\non  both these counts but reduced his sentence\tto  rigorous
\nimprison-\n<\/p>\n
467<\/span><\/p>\n
ment for 15 months and a fine of Rs. 200 on each count.\t The
\nsentences  of imprisonment were directed to  be\t concurrent.
\nIn default of payment of fine the appellant was directed  to
\nundergo\t further rigorous imprisonment for three  months  on
\neach count.\n<\/p>\n
In  this Court Shri Nuruddin Ahmad, the learned counsel\t for
\nthe  appellant\tat the outset pointed out that in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  an  application\thad  been  made\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  on April 7, 1970 to recall Gangaram (P.W. 1)\t for
\ncross-examining\t him and also for examining Mukat  Beharilal
\nand M. L. Parekh Deputy Superintendent of Police in  charge,
\nas court witnesses, but although arguments were addressed on
\nthat application at some length the High Court did not\tcare
\nto  deal  with\tthe, matter or even to refer to\t it  in\t its
\njudgment.   In\tthis connection our attention was  drawn  to
\nAnnexure D to the petition for special leave in this  Court.
\nAnenexure D is said to be a copy of the application filed in
\nthe  High  Court  by  Shri V.  S.  Dave,  Advocate  for\t the
\nappellant,  under  s. 540, Cr.\tP.C. The  material  part  of
\nAnnexure D reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. That in the above noted appeal prosecution
\n\t      examined Ganga Ram P.W. 3 as a witness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    That   Gangaram  besides   the   present
\n\t      complaint\t Ex.  P-19 also lodged\ta  complaint
\n\t      against  appellant for offence under  sections
\n\t      409, 477, I.P.C. and the accused appellant has
\n\t      been acquitted in the said case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    That the judgment in case under sections
\n\t      409  and 477, I.P.C. was delivered  subsequent
\n\t      to the examination of Gangararn as P.W. 3\t and
\n\t      as  such\the could not  be  cross-examined  in
\n\t      respect of his earlier complaints and fact  of
\n\t      enmity  and false concention of cases  against
\n\t      the appellant could not be put to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    That  appellant has also been  convicted
\n\t      for  forging the, patta alleged to  have\tbeen
\n\t      given to Mukat Beharilal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    That Mukat Behari Lal has been  withheld
\n\t      by the prosecution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    That the appellant has learnt that Mukat
\n\t      Behari  Lal  filed  a writ  petition  in\tthis
\n\t      Hon’ble  Court  in respect of the\t said  patta
\n\t      and- same is said to have: been decided in his
\n\t      favour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    That  since the subject matter of  patta
\n\t      of Mukat Behari Lal has been adjudicated\tupon
\n\t      by this Hon’ble Court his examination in\tthis
\n\t      Hon’ble Court as a witness is essential to the
\n\t      just  decision  of this case and as  also\t the
\n\t      production  of  judgment will  have  important
\n\t      bearing in the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4 68\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8.    That the Deputy S. P. who conducted\t the
\n\t      investigation  of this case has also not\tbeen
\n\t      produced\tand same has caused great  prejudice
\n\t      to the case of the appellant as the  appellant
\n\t      could  not  bring on record as to\t from  whose
\n\t      custody  the documents Ex.  P-5, P-6, P-9\t and
\n\t      P-12\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      9.    That the examination of aforesaid  three
\n\t      Witnesses is essential to the just decision of
\n\t      the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      It  is, therefore, prayed that your  lordships
\n\t      would  be pleased to accept  this\t application
\n\t      recall  Gangaram\tP.W. 3\tfor  further  cross-
\n\t      examination  and also call Mukat\tBehari\tLal
\n\t      and  the Investigating Officer as\t Court\twit-
\n\t      nesses  or  grant permission to  appellant  to
\n\t      summon them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Our  attention was also invited to Annexures E and F to\t the
\nSpecial Leave Petition.\t Annexure E is a certified copy of a
\nslip of the Court Reader in single Bench Cr.  A. No. 283  of
\n67,  Ramnarain v. State in the High Court of Judicature\t for
\nRajasthan at Jodhpur.  That slip reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This  application  was  found  lying  in\t the
\n\t      Chamber\tof  Hon’ble  Gattani  J.  How\tthis
\n\t      application  was\tplaced and who\tplaced\tthis
\n\t      application there.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t      B. C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Bansidhar
\n\t\t\t\t  Reader
\n\t\t\t\t 27-4-70″\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Annexure  F  a certified copy of the order dated  April\t 29,
\n1970  of  Deputy  Registrar of the High Court  in  the\tsaid
\nCriminal Appeal, which was also brought to our notice, reads
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  application\t has been shown\t to  Hon’ble
\n\t      Gattani  j. and according to the direction  of
\n\t      his  Lordship the application be kept  on\t the
\n\t      file.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t  Sd\/- G. K. Sharma
\n\t\t\t\t     Dy.Registrar”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On April 30, 1970 an application was presented on behalf  of
\nthe  appellant in the High Court under s. 561-A.  Cr.\tP.C.
\nThis  application, according to the appellant, was filed  on
\nMay  1, 1970 but it was neither listed nor heard  in  court.
\nThe  following order dated May 18, 1970 (as translated\tinto
\nEnglish) was recorded by the learned Judge in Hindi :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Perused the applications dated 7-4-70 and 30-
\n\t      4-70 presented on behalf of the appellant.
\n\t      46 9
\n\t      I have, decided the case on 17-4-70 and  there
\n\t      is therefore no question of saying anything on
\n\t      the  merits  now.\t As far as I  remember\tShri
\n\t      Chiranjilal  Agarwal  did mention\t during\t the
\n\t      course  of  the arguments on  7-4-70  that  he
\n\t      wanted to present an application.\t Then I\t had
\n\t      told him that if the application is  presented
\n\t      it  will\talso be\t taken\tinto  consideration.
\n\t      Thereafter during the course of the  arguments
\n\t      no application was presented before me.
\n\t      I never saw the application dated 7-4-70 in my
\n\t      Chamber, nor anyone said anything to me on 29-
\n\t      4-70 about this application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t  Sd\/- H. D. GATTANI J.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The   appellant’s   grievance  before  us   is\t that\tnon-
\nconsideration,,\t of his application dated April 7, 1970\t has
\nresulted  in grave miscarriage of justice.  Developing\tthis
\npoint  it has been contended, that the manner in which\tthis
\npart of the case was dealt with suggests non-application  of
\njudicial mind by the High Court to the case as a whole.
\nThe second point strongly pressed by Shri Nuruddin Ahmed’ is
\nthat  the  appellants  conviction is  based  solely  on\t the
\ntestimony  of  Banwari\tLal (P.W. 1),  the  approver,  whose
\nevidence has not been corroborated in material\tparticulars,
\nconnecting  the\t appellant  with  the  alleged\toffence\t  in
\nquestion.    The   appellant’s\t conviction    is,therefore,
\nunsustainable.\t P.W.  1,  according  to  the\tappellant’s,
\nsubmission, is a wholly unreliable witness add his ‘evidence
\nis so seriously discrepant and unconvincing on vital  points
\nthat  it is. highly dangerous to place any reliance  on\t it.
\nThe   sustenance  of  the  aPPellant’s\tconviction  on\t the
\napprover’s  evidence  in this case Would be  a\ttravesty  of
\njustice,  said\tthe  counsel.  We were\ttaken.\tthrough\t the
\nrelevant record of the evidence by the counsel for both.  ,-
\nides on this part of the case.\n<\/p>\n
Now  so\t far  as  the  first  grievance\t is  concerned,\t the
\nappellants  submission cannot be summarily brushed aside  as
\nwe feel there is prima facie material calling for a  further
\nprobe into the matter.\tBut as in our view even if the first
\ncontention  were  to  prevail  the  question  of   recording
\nadditional   evidence,\tas  requested  on  behalf   of\t the
\nappellant,  would  have to be considered and since,  in\t our
\nopinion,, the appeal has to be allowed on the second  point,
\nwe deem it unnecessary to express any considered opinion  on
\nthe first point.  We would, however, like to point out\tthat
\nthe  application under s. 561-A, Cr.  P.C. should have\tbeen
\ndisposed  of after hearing the appellant’s counsel  and\t its
\ndisposal without such hearing was clearly wrong and  unjust.
\nThe  appellant\thas a just grievance against the  manner  in
\nwhich this application was disposed of.\t He
\n470<\/span>
\nhad a right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being
\nheard  in  support of his application and we are  unable  to
\nappreciate the disposal of this application in the  chambers
\nwithout\t giving him such opportunity.  The counsel  for\t the
\nState was also unable to explain the divergence between\t the
\norder  of the Deputy Registrar dated April 29, 1970 and\t the
\nlearned Judge’s observation in his order dated May 18,\t1970
\nthat no one had said anything to him on April 29, 1970 about
\nthe  application dated, April 7, 1970.\tThis divergence\t has
\nalso  left on our minds a somewhat unhappy  impression\twith
\nrespect\t to the whole matter.  We need say nothing  more  on
\nthis point.\n<\/p>\n
Turning\t to  the second point we may first state  the  legal
\nposition relating to the testimony of an approver.   Section
\n133,  Indian  Evidence Act, which falls in Ch.\t IX  dealing
\ngenerally   with  witnesses,  expressly\t provides  that\t  an
\naccomplice is a competent witness and the conviction is\t not
\nillegal\t  merely  because  it  proceeds\t on   uncorroborated
\ntestimony  of an accomplice.  In other words,  this  section
\nrenders admissible such uncorroborated testimony.  But\tthis
\nsection has to be read along with illustration (b) to s. 114
\nwhich  falls  in  Ch.  VII, dealing with  Burden  of  Proof.
\nSection\t 114 empowers the court to presume the existence  of
\ncertain facts mid the illustrations elucidate what the court
\nmay presume, and make clear by means of examples as to\twhat
\nfacts the court shall have regard in considering whether  or
\nnot the maxims illustrated apply to a given case before it..
\nIllustration (b) in express terms says that an accomplice is
\nunworthy  of  credit unless he is corroborated\tin  material
\nparticulars : two examples are also given to further explain
\nthis subject.  The statute thus permits the conviction of an
\naccused\t person on the basis of uncorroborated testimony  of
\nan   accomplice\t but  the  rule\t of  prudence  embodied\t  in
\nillustration  (b)  of  s.  114 strikes\ta  note\t of  warning
\ncautioning  the court that an accomplice does not  generally
\ndeserve\t to  be\t believed unless  corroborated\tin  material
\nparticulars.  This rule of caution is traceable to the\tfact
\nthat  an  accomplice  witness from the very  nature  of\t his
\nposition  is a suspect.\t This rule is guided by\t long  human
\nexperience  and\t has become a rule of  prudence\t of  general
\napplication.  The ‘courts. therefore, consider it prudent to
\nlook   for   corroboration  in\tmaterial   particulars\t for
\nsustaining the conviction of an accused person.\t An approver
\nwho  is admittedly guilty of the crime is an accomplice\t who
\nhas betrayed his associates and has apparently sought pardon
\nfor  saving his own skin.  In other words he  has  purchased
\ncomplete immunity for his prosecution at the expense of\t his
\nassociated by agreeing to give evidence against them for the
\nprosecution.  He is. therefore, presumed not to be a man  of
\nhigh  character\t or  a\tfair  witness.\t His  pardon   being
\nconditional,  to pleased the prosecution ‘he may well  weave
\nsome  false detail into the true details of the\t prosecution
\nstory and may also falsely involve some innocent per-\n<\/p>\n
471<\/span><\/p>\n
son.   There  is thus a real danger of his telling  a  story
\ntrue  in. general outline but containing some untruth  which
\nhe  can easily work into the story.  It is for\tthis  reason
\nthat  the  courts  as  a  matter  of  prudence\tand  caution
\nanxiously  look\t for  some corroboration  to  satisfy  their
\nconscience  that the approver’s testimony which\t is  clearly
\nadmissible  is\talso worthy of belief.\tOne  can  of  course
\nvisualise  an accomplice who is genuinely repentant for\t the
\ncommission  of his crime and truly desires to make  a  clean
\nbreast\tof the whole, affair by way of penetance.  But\teven
\nin  such  cases the court has to  judicially  determine\t the
\nextent\t to  which  his\t uncorroborated\t testimony  can\t  be
\nconsidered  as trustworthy by looking to the other  relevant
\nmaterial  and  the attending circumstances on the  basis  of
\nwhich  the accused can be safely convicted.  The rule  which
\nseems  to emerge from the foregoing discussion and  judicial
\ndecisions is that the necessity of corroboration as a matter
\nof  prudence  except when it is safe to dispense  with\tsuch
\ncorroboration  must  be clearly present to the mind  of\t the
\njudge.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tin  this background that the court  is\trequired  to
\ndetermine  the\tnature\tand extent of  corroboration  of  an
\napprover’s evidence necessary in a given case for sustaining
\nthe conviction of the accused.\tThe corroborating  evidence,
\nbroadly stated, must connect’ or tend to connect the accused
\nwith the crime charged.\t This is so because of the danger of
\nthe  approver  introducing some innocent person\t or  persons
\ninto  an otherwise true prosecution story.   Such  evidence,
\nhowever, need not by itself be sufficient for sustaining the
\nconviction of the accused- for in that case the evidence  of
\nthe   approver\t would\tbe  wholly  unnecessary\t  and\tmere
\nsurplusage.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tconsidering  the evidence on the record\t it  may  be
\nborne in mind that the court should evaluate the evidence of
\nan approver de hors the corroborating pieces of evidence for
\nif  his\t testimony is itself  uninspiring  and\tunacceptable
\njustifying its rejection outright, then, it would be  futile
\nand  wholly unnecessary to look for corroborating  evidence.
\nIt  is\tonly  when the\tapprover’s  evidence  is  considered
\notherwise acceptable that the court applies its mind to\t the
\nrule  that  his testimony needs\t corroboration\tin  material
\nparticulars connecting or tending to connect each one of the
\naccused with the crime charged.\t The offences for which\t the
\nappellant  has\tbeen convicted, it may be recalled,  are  of
\nconspiracy with the approver (P.W. 1) as contemplated by  S.
\n120-B,\t I.P.C.,  and  forgery\tof  valuable   security\t  as
\ncontemplated by s. 467, I.P.C. Before us the counsel for the
\nState  clearly\tconfined his contention to  the\t forgery  of
\nvaluable security as the real gravamen of the charge against
\nthe  appellant,\t of  course, in addition to  the  charge  of
\nconspiracy.   We have, therefore, to consider  the  evidence
\nbearing in mind the ingredients of these two offences.\n<\/p>\n
472<\/span><\/p>\n
So far as the charge under S. 120-B, I.P.C. is concerned the
\n,only  evidence\t is  of the approver  and  the\ttrial  court
\nexpressly  observed that there was no other direct  evidence
\nof  conspiracy.\t After considering the case with respect  to
\nthe offence under S. 467, I.P.C. we will turn to the charge
\nof the substantive offence of conspiracy.
\nBefore dealing with the evidence on the offence under S. 467
\nit  may be recalled that the present case was  initiated  at
\nthe instance ,of Ganga Ram, ex-Sarpanch, (P.W. 3) and  some,
\nothers when they presented a complaint (Ex.  P-19) on  March
\n18,  1961 to the Collector, Kota, long after the charge\t of
\nthe Panchayat had been taken over by the Municipal  Council.
\nGanga Ram appears also to have earlier made some, complaints
\nto  the other officers but as nothing had come out of  those
\ncomplaints  the Collector was approached with an  allegation
\nof misappropriation against Ram Narain in March, 1961.\t The
\nMunicipal  Council,  it\t is  noteworthy,  did  not  care  to
\ninitiate the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
Bhanwar\t Lal, the approver, appearing as P.W. 1 has  deposed
\nthat  in  June,\t 1958 he wanted to buy a plot  of  land\t for
\nbuilding   his\t,own  house  at\t Kota  where  he  had\tbeen
\ntransferred from Udaipur as Train Clerk, Kota Junction.\t  He
\nwas introduced to the appellant through one Kanhaiyalal.  He
\ngave  to the appellant an application for that\tpurpose\t and
\nalso  paid  Rs.\t 40 towards the price of the  land  and\t the
\nappellant  gave\t him a patta for a piece of  land  measuring
\n30’X45′ without showing him its exact location.\t Inspite  of
\nrepeated requests the appellant did not show him the plot on
\ncertain pretexts for about four or five months.\t And then he
\nshowed him a plot measuring on 30’X35′.\t On objection  being
\nraised\tthe appellant promised to give to P.W. 1  some\tmore
\nland  elsewhere.  It  appears  that  the  approver  and\t the
\nappellant  had by then become quite intimate.  The  approver
\ngave  to  the  appellant  a  contract  for  filling  up\t the
\nfoundation  for a house and also paid him about Rs. 8  or  9
\nhundred\t for  which he took no receipt.\t The  approver\talso
\nstarted teaching the appellant’s children as a private tutor
\nwithout\t ,charging  anything.  It was due to  this  intimacy
\nthat  the  appellant is said to have asked the\tapprover  to
\nhelp him in completing the proceedings\tof  some  incomplete
\npatta  cases of the Gram Panchayat.  Bhanwar Lal,  approver,
\nwho   ultimately  agreed  to  do  this\twork  went  to\t the
\nappellant’s house where he found one Mehta, Secretary of the
\nMandi  Committee, Madan Mohan Vijay and Badri  Prasad.\t The
\nappellant introduced the, approver to Mehta and Madan  Mohan
\nand  asked them to complete the Panchayat records  according
\nto  his\t directions.   According  to  the  approver  he\t had
\nprepared  about 200 pattas and order sheets, in about  eight
\nor  ten\t days’\ttime.\tIt is unnecessary  to  go  into\t the
\nremaining  evidence of the approver at this stage.   Suffice
\nit to say that from his evidence it is not at all clear\t as
\nto what interest the approver bad in helping the appel-\n<\/p>\n
473<\/span><\/p>\n
lant  in  what is described as the forgery  of\tthe  various
\ndocuments.  His evidence, therefore, seems, prima facie,  to
\nbe unimpressive and hardly trustworthy.\t The charge under s.
\n467, as already observed, is confined to four pattas  issued
\nin favour of Suraj Singh, Mool Singh and Mukat Behari.\t Two
\npattas\tissued in favour of Suraj Singh are Exs.  P5 and  P6
\nand one patta each in favour of Mool Singh and Mukat  Behari
\nare Exs.  P 9 and P 12 respectively.  Before taking up these
\ninstances  and scrutinising this evidence, we may point\t out
\nthat there is no evidence worth the name and no argument was
\nurged  before us to attempt to show that in the case of\t the
\npatta in question either the consideration received was less
\nthan  the  market  value or the, amount\t realised  had\tbeen
\nmisappropriated\t and not duly deposited and credited in\t the
\nappropriate account.  There is thus no question of  unlawful
\ngain or loss by cheating any-body.  Now s. 467 provides\t for
\npunishment  for\t forging a document which purports to  be  a
\nvaluable security or a will etc.  We ,are concerned with the
\noffence of forging a valuable security.\t Forgery is  defined
\nin  s. 463, I.P.C. according to which whoever makes a  false
\ndocument or part of a document with intent to. cause  damage
\nor  injury to the public or to any person or to support\t any
\nclaim or title or to cause any person to part with property
\nor  to\tenter into any express or implied contract  or\twith
\nintent\tto  commit  fraud or that fraud\t may  be  committed,
\ncommits\t forgery.   Section 30,\t I.P.C.,  defines  “valuable
\nsecurity”  to be a document which purports to be a  document
\nwhereby\t any legal fight is created, extended,\ttransferred,
\nrestricted,  extinguished or released or whereby any  person
\nacknowledges that he lies under legal liability or has not a
\ncertain legal right.  We are, therefore, concerned only with
\nforgery of valuable security.  The fact that the pattas were
\ngranted\t in  favour  of the three  persons  mentioned  above
\nirregularly   or  contrary  to\tany  rules   or\t  directions
\napplicable to such pattas would be wholly immaterial  except
\nto  the extent it supports the case of forgery\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
In so far as the case of Suraj Singh is concerned there\t are
\ntwo  pattas Exs.  P 5 and P 6, both dated May 5, 1958.\t The
\ntwo plots measuring about 100 sq. yds. each were allotted to
\nSuraj  Singh for a consideration of Rs. 37.50 each  with  an
\nadditional sum of Rs. 2 each as plan fee.  The consideration
\nmoney has been described in these pattas to be “Bhaint”.  It
\nis expressly recited in these pattas that the requisite, fee
\nof  Rs.\t 30.50 has been deposited  vide\t Rokarpanna.   These
\npattas are signed by the appellant and clearly there can  be
\nno question of forging anybody’s signatures, so far as these
\ntwo  documents\tare concerned.\tExhibit P-4  is\t the order
\nsheet  with  respect  to  Suraj\t Singh.\t  According  to\t the
\napprover he, the appellant and Badri Prasad, had  fabricated
\nthe signatures of Ghasi and Babulal and the thumb impression
\nof  Panch Bhanwarlal (P.W. 8) on Ex.  P-4.  Except  for\t the
\napprover’s bald statement there is no
\n474<\/span>
\nother  evidence in support of this assertion.\tBabulal\t who
\nwas produced as P.W. 5 expressed his inability to say either
\nway  whether Ex. P-4 bore his signatures.  He is  illiterate
\nand,  according\t to  his  own evidence,\t can  only  put\t his
\nsignatures  which also he is unable to identify.  Ghasi\t was
\nnot produced by the prosecution.  He was, however,  produced
\nin defence as D.W. 2 for admitting his signatures on Ex.  P-
\n11,  the order sheet relating to Mukat Behari’s\t case.\t But
\nwhen   he  appeared  as\t a  defence  witness   neither\t the
\nprosecution  nor  the defence asked him any  questions\twith
\nrespect\t to  Ex.P-4.  The  omission  on\t the  part  of\t the
\nprosecution to question him about Ex. P-4 in the absence  of
\nany   cogent   explanation  is,\t in   our   opinion,   quite
\nsignificant.   Some  evidence has been led with\t respect  to
\nentries\t in Ex.\t P- 1, the cash book of the  Gram  Panchayat
\nbut since the charges we are concerned with are under s. 467
\nand  120B, I.P.C. it is unnecessary, as indeed,\t irrelevant,
\nto  refer to that evidence.  Before us the counsel  for\t the
\nState  expressly  confined his case to the  forgery  of\t the
\npattas which, according to him, constitute valuable security
\nwithin\tthe contemplation of s. 467.  With respect to  Suraj
\nSingh, therefore, we do not have any reliable evidence which
\ncan  be\t said  to corroborate the  approver,  assuming\tthe,
\napprover’s  evidence  to  be acceptable\t which\twe  are\t not
\ninclined to hold.\n<\/p>\n
We  now\t turn to Mool Singh’s patta Ex.\t  P-9.\t This  patta
\nrelates\t  to  an  area\tmeasuring  100\tsq.  yds.  and\t the
\nconsideration is stated to be Rs. 30 with an additional\t sum
\nof  Rs.\t 2 as plan fee.\t Here again,  the  consideration  is
\ndescribed  as  “Bhaint”.   Exhibit  P-9\t also  contains\t  an
\nassertion  that\t the  requisite amount of Rs.  32  had\tbeen
\ndeposited vide Rokarpana.  This patta is also signed by\t Ram
\nNarain\tand there is no question of forging any\t one  else’s
\nsignatures.   The order sheet relating to this patta is\t Ex.
\nP-8 which is signed by the appellant and also purports to be
\nsigned by Onkar and Ghasi.  The position of this patta is no
\nbetter\tthan  that of Ex.  P-5 which is in favour  of  Suraj
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
Mukat  Behari’s\t patta\tis  Ex.\t P-12 and  is  for  an\tarea
\nmeasuring  227 sq. yds. and 7 sq. ft.  The consideration  is
\nstated to be Rs. too, inclusive of Rs. 2 as plan fee.\tHere
\nalso the amount is, stated to have  been  deposited  as\t per
\nRokarpana and the receipt is signed by\tone  M.\t B.  Sharma.
\nThe  order  sheet relating to this patta is Ex.\t P-11  which
\npurports  to  bear the signatures of Ghasi  and\t Madan\tLal,
\nGhasi  (D.W. 2) has deposed about his signatures on Ex.\t  P1
\n1,  as already noticed.\t Mukat Behari’s case,, if  anything,
\nbecomes more doubtful because, of the evidence of Ghasi.
\nSuraj  Singh was produced as P.W. 2 but he did\tnot  support
\nthe prosecution and was allowed to be cross-examined by\t the
\npublic prosecutor.  Quite clearly his evidence does not show
\nthat he was in any way cheated by the appellant.  Shri Ganga
\nRam,  the  original  complainant, has appeared\tas  P.W.  3.
\nAccording to him he
\n47 5
\nhad taken over charge from the appellant on August 31,\t1958
\nand continued to work as Sarpanch till the charge was handed
\nover to the Municipal Council or the Municipal Board.\tWhen
\nhe  want to the office of the Municipal Board to  hand\tover
\ncharge,\t according to his own statement, the  appellant\t had
\nalso  gone  with  him.\tIt was after the  abolition  of\t the
\nPanchayat that he learnt that the appellant was selling land
\nand  issuing  pattas  and  it was then\tthat  lie  made\t the
\ncomplaint Ex.  P-19.  Before handing over charge also he had
\nmade certain complaints against the appellant on which\tShri
\nMehta, the Division Panchayat Officer had made enquiries but
\nthose complaints were not substantiated.  From his  evidence
\nit  seems  clear  that the relations  between  him  and\t the
\nappellant were far from cordial.  Indeed, the appellant\t had
\nalso  complained against this witness of keeping some  money
\nbelonging to the Panchayat.  Even otherwise his evidence  is
\nwholly\tunimpressive and is difficult to accept on its\tface
\nvalue.\n<\/p>\n
Again, when we consider the evidence, of Madan Lal (D.W.  1)
\nand  Ghasi  son\t of  Ramlal (D.W. 2)  both  Panchas  of\t the
\nPanchayat  in question upto 1958 and the evidence of  Ganesh
\nRam (P.W. 4) the evidence of the approver becomes still more
\nunacceptable.\tMadan Lal has stated that he was a Panch  of
\nKhand  Gawari Panchayat upto 1-959 and a piece of  land\t was
\nsold  to  Mukat Behari in 1958 when he was  present  in\t the
\nmeeting\t of  the Panchayat.  Signatures on  Ex.\t  P-11\twere
\nidentified  by him.  The Panchayat also sold pieces of\tland
\nto  Mool Singh and Suraj Singh.\t On his evidence Ex.  P-1  1
\nis  clearly a genuine document.\t Ghasi (D.W. 2) also  admits
\nhis  signatures on Ex.\tP-11. In face of his evidence it  is
\nnot understood how his signatures can be held to be  forged.
\nGanga Ram (P.W. 4) has deposed that he was not literate\t and
\ncould  only sign his name.  After so deposing  he  expressly
\nstated\tthat he was unable to identify his  own\t signatures.
\nHis  evidence,\ttherefore, also losses its  importance.\t  In
\nface  of  this\tmaterial,  we  find  that  the\t appellant’s
\nconviction under s. 467.  I.P.C. is wholly unsustainable  on
\nthe  existing  evidence.  The approver’s testimony  is\tmost
\nuninspiring and there is no corroboration worth the name.
\nWe  now turn to the charge of criminal conspiracy  under  s.
\n120-B, I.P.C. as a separate and distinct offence independent
\nof the offence under s. 467, I.P.C. No doubt in almost every
\ncase  of conspiracy it is generally a matter  of  inference,
\ndirect\t independent   evidence\t being\tsoldom,\t  if   ever,
\nforthcoming.  But inferences are normally deduced from\tacts
\nof  parties in pursuance of apparent criminal  purpose\tin
\ncommon between them.  Of such criminal acts the evidence  in
\nthe  case  under appeal has not been accepted  by  us.\t The
\nevidence  of  the approver (P.W. 1) who would of  course  be
\ncompetent  to  prove the substantive charge  of\t conspiracy,
\nwhich has not been believed by us with respect to forgery is
\nnot   easy  to\taccept\twith  respect  to  the\tcharge,\t  of
\nconspiracy.  His version with regard
\n15-L796Sup.C.I. \/73
\n476<\/span>
\nto  it\tis far from convincing.\t Though he  claims  to\thave
\nprepared  200  pattas and order sheets,\t evidence  regarding
\nonly  four  was led and that too not trustworthy.   For\t the
\nfirst time he disclosed the story to the police after arrest
\nin   expectation  of  help  from  them.\t  On  his   evidence
\nuncorroborated as it is, the charge of conspiracy as  framed
\ncannot\tbe sustained.  We have, therefore, no option but  to
\nallow  this  appeal, quash the\tappellant’s  conviction\t and
\nacquit him.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n4 77\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1188, 1973 SCR (3) 463 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: RAMNARAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1973 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: 1973 AIR 1188 1973 SCR (3) […]<\/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-48843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - 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\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-27T23:12:37+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T23:12:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\"},\"wordCount\":5534,\"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\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\",\"name\":\"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-27T23:12:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - 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\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-27T23:12:37+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973","datePublished":"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T23:12:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973"},"wordCount":5534,"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\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973","name":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-27T23:12:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnarain-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-31-january-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramnarain vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 1973"}]},{"@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\/48843","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=48843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}