{"id":52626,"date":"2003-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-06T23:12:06","modified_gmt":"2016-02-06T17:42:06","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B.N.Agrawal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N.Variava, B.N.Agrawal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  729 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Rajasthan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSheo Singh  &amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS.N.VARIAVA &amp;  B.N.AGRAWAL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>B.N.AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe five respondents along with nineteen other accused persons<br \/>\nwere charged and tried and by  judgment dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by the<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, other nineteen accused persons were<br \/>\nacquitted whereas the respondents were convicted under Sections 302\/149 of<br \/>\nthe Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides fine of<br \/>\nRs. 500\/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of<br \/>\nthree months.  They were further convicted under Section 147 of the Penal Code<br \/>\nand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to<br \/>\npay a fine of Rs. 100\/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<br \/>\na period of one month.\tThe respondents were also convicted under Section 148<br \/>\nof the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period<br \/>\nof two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200\/- each and in default to undergo<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.  All the sentences were,<br \/>\nhowever, ordered to run concurrently.  On appeal being preferred, the High Court<br \/>\nacquitted the respondents of all the charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProsecution case, in short, is that on 14th February, 1990, Manna Lal and<br \/>\nKanwar Lal were coming from village Gehoon Kheda and when they\tarrived on a<br \/>\npathway at about 2.00 p.m. near the field of one Chandra Singh, Gopal (PW 4),<br \/>\nwho was working on his field, found that all the accused persons, including the<br \/>\nrespondents, armed with sword and gandasis, who were waiting  there from<br \/>\nbefore in the field of Chandra Singh, chased Manna Lal and Kanwar Lal and<br \/>\nassaulted them with their respective weapons. Seeing the assault on Manna Lal<br \/>\nand Kanwar Lal, who were uncle and father respectively of Gopal (PW 4), he<br \/>\nwent towards the village and on the way met his brothers Kalyan (PW 5), Jamna<br \/>\nLal (PW 6) and Dhanna Lal (PW 8) and disclosed to them names of the accused<br \/>\npersons, including the respondents.  Thereupon, the aforesaid three persons<br \/>\ncame to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away.<br \/>\nManna Lal died instantaneously but Kanwar Lal, who succumbed to the injuries<br \/>\nafter some time, made an oral dying declaration before the informant-PW 4<br \/>\ndisclosing therein names of the accused persons, including respondent Sheo<br \/>\nSingh and one Ram Singh, without disclosing their parentage.  According to the<br \/>\nfirst information report, the occurrence was witnessed by Mangi Lal Bagri  (PW 7)<br \/>\nand Mangi Lal Meena besides the informant-PW4.\tOn the basis of the statement<br \/>\nof Gopal (PW 4), the first information report is said to have been lodged on the<br \/>\nsame day at 4.00 p.m.<br \/>\n\tThe police after registering the case took up investigation and on<br \/>\ncompletion thereof submitted charge sheet on receipt whereof,  the Magistrate<br \/>\ntook cognizance and committed all the twenty four accused persons, including<br \/>\nthe respondents, to the court of Session to face trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDefence of the accused, in short, is that they are innocent, had no<br \/>\ncomplicity with the crime but were falsely implicated to feed fat the old grudge.<br \/>\nAccording to them, the victims might have received injuries in some other<br \/>\nmanner of occurrence at the hands of some unknown persons and they have<br \/>\nbeen roped in in the present case out of animosity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDuring trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case.<br \/>\nThe Additional Sessions Judge upon the conclusion of trial acquitted other<br \/>\nnineteen accused persons but convicted the respondents as stated above.\t On<br \/>\nappeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted the respondents of all the<br \/>\ncharges.  Hence, this appeal by Special Leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMs. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State<br \/>\nof Rajasthan, in support of the appeal submitted that the High Court was not<br \/>\njustified in acquitting the respondents of the charges and the reasonings for<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by it are perverse.\t On the other hand, Mr. S.R.Bajwa, learned<br \/>\nSenior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, could not justify<br \/>\nreasoning of the High Court for recording acquittal, but submitted that there are<br \/>\ncertain inherent infirmities in the prosecution case which have not been<br \/>\nconsidered by the High Court.  It was submitted that the order of acquittal should<br \/>\nbe confirmed because of the said infirmities.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have been taken through the judgments rendered by the High Court<br \/>\nas well as  trial court.   We are not at all impressed by the reasonings given by<br \/>\nthe High Court for recording acquittal but are of the view that the order of<br \/>\nacquittal is fit to be upheld in view of certain circumstances enumerated<br \/>\nhereinafter which would show that the prosecution case showing complicity of the<br \/>\nrespondents with the crime is highly doubtful.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to the first information report, three persons namely, Gopal<br \/>\n(PW 4-informant), Mangi Lal Bagri (PW 7) and Mange Lal Meena had witnessed<br \/>\nthe alleged occurrence.\t Apart from  these three persons, Jamna Lal (PW 6) was<br \/>\nexamined, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, but his evidence<br \/>\nhas been disbelieved by the trial court itself.\t Mangi Lal Bagri, (PW 7), who<br \/>\naccording to the FIR was an eyewitness, has been also disbelieved by the trial<br \/>\ncourt.\tThe third eyewitness is Mange Lal Meena who could have been<br \/>\nindependent witness to unfold the truth but for the reasons best known to the<br \/>\nprosecution, his evidence has been withheld.  Thus, the only eye witness<br \/>\nremains is Gopal (PW 4).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPW 4-the informant is nobody else than the nephew of deceased Manna<br \/>\nLal and son of another deceased Kanwar Lal.  He has admitted that his family<br \/>\nand the accused persons were at daggers drawn.\tThe first information report is<br \/>\nsaid to have been recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police Samdarshan Pandey<br \/>\n(PW 18).  This witness in his very examination-in-chief stated that when he went<br \/>\nto Aklera police station to lodge a report, at the police station he met Bhanwar<br \/>\nSingh, Station House Officer and narrated him the whole incident which was the<br \/>\nfirst version of the occurrence disclosed by PW 4 before the police.  But the said<br \/>\nstatement made by PW 4 before him has not been brought on the record and for<br \/>\nthe reasons best known to it withheld by the prosecution.   It may be possible that<br \/>\nin the said statement, PW 4 might not have disclosed names of any of the<br \/>\naccused and subsequently, after due deliberation, the first information report was<br \/>\nlodged roping therein the respondents as well which might be the reason for<br \/>\ndelay in  sending the first information report\tto court  for which no reasonable<br \/>\nexplanation has been furnished and the same  would be apparent from the facts<br \/>\nmentioned hereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe explanation furnished by the prosecution for sending the first<br \/>\ninformation report to court after two days is that because of general election, staff<br \/>\nwas not available on 14th and 15th February, 1990.  The distance of police station<br \/>\nis 18 k.m. from the place of occurrence.  The police station, hospital and the<br \/>\ncourt campus are within a radius of half a kilometer.  According to the statement<br \/>\nof Dr. Kundan Mal Jain (PW 17), constable brought two dead bodies for<br \/>\npostmortem examination on 15th February, 1990.\tAs the court campus and the<br \/>\nhospital are within a radius of half a kilometer, there was no reason why the first<br \/>\ninformation report was not handed over to the same constable who brought<br \/>\ndead bodies to the hospital.   Thus, the explanation furnished by the prosecution<br \/>\nfor causing delay in sending the first information report does not appear to be<br \/>\nplausible and as according to the statement of PW 4 referred to above, the<br \/>\nprosecution has withheld the first version of the occurrence disclosed before the<br \/>\npolice, the chances of manipulation in the first information report cannot be ruled<br \/>\nout and the delay in sending the first information report to court becomes<br \/>\nmaterial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt may be stated that the informant-PW4 stated in the first information<br \/>\nreport that his father-Kanwar Lal made a dying declaration before him in which<br \/>\nhe disclosed names of seven persons, including respondent Sheo Singh besides<br \/>\none Ram Singh without disclosing his parentage and as two Ram Singhs are<br \/>\naccused and only one of them is respondent, it is not known whose name was<br \/>\ndisclosed by informant&#8217;s father before him in the dying declaration.  So far this<br \/>\ndying declaration said to have been made by informant&#8217;s father before him is<br \/>\nconcerned, this could have been best piece of evidence so far respondent Sheo<br \/>\nSingh is concerned, but the prosecution has given a complete go-by to the same<br \/>\nas in the statement made in court, this witness did not state that his father made<br \/>\nany dying declaration before him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe informant (PW 4) specifically stated in his statement made in court<br \/>\nthat his father Kanwar Lal made a dying declaration before the police when it<br \/>\narrived and disclosed therein names of his assailants.\tIt is not known whether in<br \/>\nthe said dying declaration, names of the respondents were mentioned or not.<br \/>\nThis could have been material  evidence in support of the prosecution case<br \/>\nshowing complicity of the respondents with the crime.  But the prosecution for the<br \/>\nreasons best known to it has withheld the said dying declaration from court for<br \/>\nwhich no reason whatsoever has been furnished.\n<\/p>\n<p>The other two witnesses upon whom trial court placed reliance are Kalyan<br \/>\n(PW 5) and Dhanna Lal (PW 8).  According to the first information report, none of<br \/>\nthese witnesses was eyewitness, but when the informant\twent to the village after<br \/>\nthe occurrence, he met them on the way, disclosed the names of the accused<br \/>\npersons to them and thereafter when they arrived at the place of occurrence, the<br \/>\naccused persons were seen fleeing away.\t In court PW.4 has simply stated that<br \/>\non way to the village he met these witnesses, but did not state that he disclosed<br \/>\nnames of accused to them.  Even these two witnesses have not stated that the<br \/>\ninformant disclosed names of the accused persons before them but simply stated<br \/>\nthat his father and uncle were murdered.   Thus, the prosecution case that when<br \/>\nthe informant (PW 4) met these witnesses on his way to the village, he disclosed<br \/>\nnames of the accused persons has not been proved either by the informant or<br \/>\nany other witness.   These witnesses simply stated that PW 4 stated to them that<br \/>\nManna Lal and Kanwar Lal had been murdered and on their arrival at the place<br \/>\nof occurrence, the accused persons, including the respondents, were seen<br \/>\nfleeing away, which statement has not been supported by PW.4 as he has no<br \/>\nwhere stated in court that these two witnesses had seen the accused persons<br \/>\nfleeing away.  In view of the fact that first version of the occurrence, as unfolded<br \/>\nby PW 4, has been withheld by the prosecution, it is not safe to place reliance<br \/>\nupon the evidence of this witness who is partisan and inimical witness, more so,<br \/>\nwhen the dying declarations of Kanwar Lal made before the informant as well as<br \/>\nthe police disclosing therein names of the assailants have not been brought on<br \/>\nthe record.  As the evidence of PW 4 becomes doubtful, it is not possible to place<br \/>\nreliance upon the statements of PWs. 5 and 8 who claimed that they had seen<br \/>\nthe accused persons fleeing away, especially when the same are not<br \/>\ncorroborated by PW.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has<br \/>\nfailed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such it is not possible to<br \/>\ninterfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court.<br \/>\n\tAccordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  The<br \/>\nrespondents, who are on bail are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 Author: B.N.Agrawal Bench: S.N.Variava, B.N.Agrawal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 729 of 1994 PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan RESPONDENT: Sheo Singh &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2003 BENCH: S.N.VARIAVA &amp; B.N.AGRAWAL JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T B.N.AGRAWAL, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - 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-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1960,\"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-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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 Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - 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-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003"},"wordCount":1960,"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-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T17:42:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-sheo-singh-ors-on-20-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Sheo Singh &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/52626","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=52626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52626\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}