{"id":51087,"date":"2011-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2"},"modified":"2017-02-23T06:01:04","modified_gmt":"2017-02-23T00:31:04","slug":"state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 24 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 24 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/261420\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 2614 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJETUBHAI\nMERAMBHAI VALA &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHL JANI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n2. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/02\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<br \/>\n1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated<br \/>\n05.07.2008 passed by the  Special Judge, Amreli in Special Atrocity<br \/>\nCase No. 45 of 2007, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the<br \/>\ncharges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tOn<br \/>\n28.05.2007, at about 9.00 pm, the complainant after having dinner was<br \/>\non his way to the shop of one Abdulbhai Karimbhai.  At that time, the<br \/>\noriginal accused no.1 and another person came on bike in a drunken<br \/>\ncondition and asked the complainant to call the daughter-in-law of<br \/>\nVagha but the complainant said that he did not know her.  It is<br \/>\nalleged that the accused abused the complainant and gave a blow with<br \/>\niron rod on the right hand palm and another blow on the back side of<br \/>\nthe complainant.  The shop owner intervened and separated them.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tTherefore<br \/>\na complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against<br \/>\nthe respondents  with the Vadia Police Station vide C.R. No.<br \/>\nI-27\/2007. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of<br \/>\nseveral witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation,<br \/>\nrespondents were  arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed<br \/>\nagainst them. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the<br \/>\nSessions  Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tThe<br \/>\ntrial was initiated against the respondents  and during the course of<br \/>\ntrial the trial court examined 12 witnesses as oral evidences and<br \/>\nalso examined 9 documentary evidences.  \tAt<br \/>\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under<br \/>\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of<br \/>\nprosecution and the defence, the  learned Sessions Judge acquitted<br \/>\nthe respondents  of all the charges leveled against them by judgement<br \/>\nand order dated 05.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order<br \/>\npassed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has preferred the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by Mr. Jani, learned APP that the judgement and order<br \/>\nof the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions<br \/>\nCourt has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution<br \/>\nand looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that<br \/>\nthe prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence<br \/>\nagainst the present respondents . Learned APP has also taken this<br \/>\ncourt  through the oral as well  as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would<br \/>\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an<br \/>\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very<br \/>\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In<br \/>\nthe case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp;<br \/>\nAnr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated<br \/>\nabout the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of<br \/>\nacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\nrecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in<br \/>\n(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following<br \/>\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n<p> 42.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general<br \/>\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with<br \/>\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>[1]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider<br \/>\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]\tThe<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or<br \/>\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the<br \/>\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of<br \/>\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tVarious<br \/>\nexpressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good<br \/>\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,<br \/>\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not<br \/>\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature<br \/>\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an<br \/>\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power<br \/>\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>[4]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal<br \/>\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the<br \/>\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental<br \/>\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be<br \/>\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent<br \/>\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the<br \/>\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and<br \/>\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>[5]\tIf<br \/>\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence<br \/>\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2\tThus,<br \/>\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even<br \/>\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/585040\/\">State of Goa<br \/>\nV. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75, the<br \/>\nCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In<br \/>\npara 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the<br \/>\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal<br \/>\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the<br \/>\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any<br \/>\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized<br \/>\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement<br \/>\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a<br \/>\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed<br \/>\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.<br \/>\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis<br \/>\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused<br \/>\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.4\tSimilar<br \/>\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of<br \/>\nState of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in<br \/>\n2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state<br \/>\nof MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this<br \/>\nCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.5\tIt<br \/>\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give<br \/>\nfresh reasonigns, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the  case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported<br \/>\nin AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &amp;<br \/>\nThis<br \/>\ncourt has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini<br \/>\nChaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty<br \/>\nof the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial<br \/>\ncourt on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to<br \/>\nreiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general<br \/>\nagreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which<br \/>\nis under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.6\tThus,<br \/>\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tWe<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court.<br \/>\nWe have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by<br \/>\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the appellant.  The trial court in its judgement and<br \/>\norder has gone into the evidence in detail and made relevant<br \/>\nobservations in para 21.    The trial court has observed that the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence do not support the say of the witnesses.<br \/>\nMoreover, neither of the oral witnesses have supported the say of the<br \/>\ncomplainant.  It also appears that medical evidence also does not<br \/>\nsuport the case of the complainant.  In that view of the matter, we<br \/>\nare not inclined to admit the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.1\tThus,<br \/>\nfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has<br \/>\nnot proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Jani, learned APP is<br \/>\nnot in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the<br \/>\nmatter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some<br \/>\nmanifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the<br \/>\ntrial court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that<br \/>\nthe trial court was completely justified in acquitting the<br \/>\nrespondents  of the charges leveled against them. We find that the<br \/>\nfindings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper<br \/>\nand in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has<br \/>\nbeen committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with<br \/>\nthe findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to<br \/>\ninterfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\njudgement and order dated 05.07.2008 passed by the  Special Judge,<br \/>\nAmreli in Special Atrocity Case No. 45 of 2007 acquitting the<br \/>\nrespondents-accused is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall<br \/>\nstand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>                   (K.S. JHAVERI, J.)   <\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Divya\/\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs The on 24 March, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/261420\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2614 of 2008 ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus JETUBHAI MERAMBHAI VALA &amp; 1 &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs The on 24 March, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-23T00:31:04+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=\"9 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-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 24 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T00:31:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1730,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T00:31:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 24 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 vs The on 24 March, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-23T00:31:04+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 24 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T00:31:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2"},"wordCount":1730,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2","name":"State vs The on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T00:31:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-24-march-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 24 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/51087","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=51087"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51087\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}