{"id":54576,"date":"2008-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-20T07:46:59","modified_gmt":"2017-07-20T02:16:59","slug":"sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&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\/7720\/2001\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \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. 77 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nSONALBEN\nSASHIKANT BHATT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBC DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMS HANSABEN PUNANI APP for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \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 BHAGWATI PRASAD\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\tDate\n: 14\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellants   convicts have preferred the present appeal u\/s 374 (2)<br \/>\nof the I.P. Code  challenging   judgment and order of conviction and<br \/>\nsentence dated 17-1-2001 rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nCity Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1997<br \/>\nconvicting them  for the offence punishable  u\/s 302 read with<br \/>\nSection 34 of the I.P. Code  and  sentencing them  to undergo<br \/>\nsentence of  life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000\/-, in<br \/>\ndefault thereof, to undergo further sentence of six months&#8217; Rigorous<br \/>\nImprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\nbrief, the prosecution case  is that deceased  Savitaben Triloksing<br \/>\nwas the sister of appellant Surendrakumar and accused Laxmiben<br \/>\nSurendrakumar   was the wife of appellant Surendrakumar. Savitaben<br \/>\nwas residing in the house of her sister Pushpaben  Narendrakumar and<br \/>\nappellant Surendrakumar  and his wife Laxmiben were residing  behind<br \/>\nher house and were picking up frequent quarrels with Savitaben as to<br \/>\nwhy she came to reside there. Appellant Sonalben  was tenant of<br \/>\nappellant Surendrakumar. On  23-5-1996  at about 6-00 in the evening<br \/>\nwhen  Savitaben was sitting on  otala ,  Laxmiben came there and<br \/>\nstarted abusing her. As Savitaben  told her not to give abuses,<br \/>\nLaxmiben got enraged and brought kerosene container. Appellant<br \/>\nSonalben caught hold of deceased Savitaben and Laxmiben poured<br \/>\nkerosene over her. At that time, appellant Surendrakumar came there<br \/>\nand ignited matchstick. Nitaben the daughter of the deceased, her<br \/>\nsister Pushpaben and other persons came there and extinguished the<br \/>\nfire. Savitaben was taken to  the hospital and  she lodged a<br \/>\ncomplaint. During treatment, Savitaben succumbed to her injuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tOn<br \/>\nthe basis of the complaint filed by Savitaben  investigation was<br \/>\nstarted. At the end of  investigation charge sheet  came to be filed<br \/>\nagainst the accused   for the  offence punishable  u\/s  302 and 34 of<br \/>\n the I.P. Code. As the offence was  triable by Sessions Court, the<br \/>\ncase  was committed to the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and it  was<br \/>\nregistered as Sessions Case No. 12  of 1997. Learned Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Court No.17,  City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad  framed<br \/>\ncharge Exh. 1 for the offence punishable u\/s 302 read with section 34<br \/>\n of the I.P. Code.  The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be<br \/>\ntried and hence  the prosecution  adduced evidence to prove the<br \/>\ncharge.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tOn<br \/>\ncompletion  of recording of evidence, the learned trial Judge<br \/>\nexplained to the accused the incriminating  circumstances  appearing<br \/>\nagainst them  in the evidence. The accused   in their  further<br \/>\nstatement recorded  u\/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<br \/>\nstated that they have not committed  the offence and they  have been<br \/>\nfalsely implicated in the offence. The accused also examined defence<br \/>\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tDuring<br \/>\npendnecy of trial, accused Laxmiben Surendrakumar  Varma  died and<br \/>\nhence the case stood abated against her.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tAfter<br \/>\nhearing the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned advocate for the<br \/>\naccused, the trial Court convicted  the accused  and sentenced them<br \/>\nto undergo  sentence as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved  by<br \/>\nthe said decision,  the accused  have  preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tWe<br \/>\nhave heard learned advocate Mr. B.C. Dave for  the appellants and<br \/>\nlearned A.P.P. Ms. Hansaben Punani  for the respondent   State at<br \/>\nlength and in great detail. We have also perused the impugned<br \/>\njudgment and records and proceeding  of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the appellants mainly submitted  that there were<br \/>\ndisputes between  the appellant and the deceased  and there is no<br \/>\nindependent evidence   to connect the accused in the offence.<br \/>\nAppellant Sonalben was not concerned with the dispute and she is<br \/>\nfalsely implicated. He has also submitted that  there is no evidence<br \/>\nto connect the accused with the offence.   Therefore, the impugned<br \/>\njudgment is erroneous  and it deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tLearned<br \/>\nA.P.P. Ms. Hansaben Punani submitted that the prosecution has proved<br \/>\nthe case beyond reasonable doubt by  reliable evidence. Therefore,<br \/>\nno interference  is warranted in the impugned judgment and  the<br \/>\nappeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\nprosecution mainly relied upon First Information Report lodged by the<br \/>\ndeceased, her  dying declaration recorded by the Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate,  and  history  of her injuries given by the deceased to<br \/>\nthe Doctor.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tAfter<br \/>\nthe incident Savitaben was taken to the hospital for treatment. The<br \/>\nDoctor who treated her, recorded the history of burn injuries in the<br \/>\ncase papers given by Savitaben. The prosecution examined the Doctor<br \/>\nP.W. 7 Dr. Bharatkumar Shankerlal Dave  at Exh. 32. According to the<br \/>\nwitness, when Savitaben was brought to hospital for treatment, she<br \/>\ngave history of her  injuries. According to him, history of her burn<br \/>\ninjuries was recorded in the case papers Exh.33. The prosecution<br \/>\nproduced case papers  at Exh. 33. It appears from the case papers<br \/>\nthat  Savitaben in the  history of burn injuries stated that her<br \/>\nbrother and her brother&#8217;s wife  set her on fire. Therefore, it is<br \/>\nclear that at the first opportunity, after the incident, Savitaben<br \/>\nimplicated  appellant Surendrakumar in the offence  alleging that he<br \/>\nalong with his wife set her on fire. The case papers also  indicate<br \/>\nthat Savitaben was conscious. There is nothing to indicate that false<br \/>\nhistory was recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe<br \/>\nprosecution also examined P.W.1 Jagdish Sundarlal, the Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate who recorded dying  declaration at  Exh. 8. According to<br \/>\nthe witness, before recording dying declaration, he ascertained as to<br \/>\nwhether  the patient was conscious or not. The witness  also inquired<br \/>\nfrom  the Doctor about the same  who informed him that the patient<br \/>\nwas conscious and so   he started recording  dying declaration. The<br \/>\ndying declaration is in the form of questions and answers. It was<br \/>\nrecorded between 09-50 and 10-15 at night on  23-5-1996. At the end<br \/>\nof declaration,  there is an endorsement made by the Doctor at 10-05<br \/>\np.m. that the patient was conscious and was able to speak. The<br \/>\nExecutive Magistrate also made an endorsement that the patient was<br \/>\nconscious.  Dying Declaration Exh. 10 indicates that accused Laxmiben<br \/>\npoured kerosene on the declarant    and appellant Surendrakumar<br \/>\nignited match-stick. It also indicates that appellant Sonalben who<br \/>\nwas with them also burnt her. It emerges from the dying declaration<br \/>\nthat before recording the dying  declaration,  the Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate   ascertained that the patient was conscious and  was able<br \/>\nto give  account of her burn injuries. The Doctor  also made<br \/>\nendorsement  that the patient was conscious  and was able to speak.<br \/>\nThere is nothing to indicate that Savitaben was not in fit  state of<br \/>\nmind to give account of her burn injuries or that it was tutored.<br \/>\nThe defence  has not been able to point out any infirmity in it.  It<br \/>\nclearly indicates the role played by appellant Surendrakumar  in<br \/>\nsetting the deceased on fire. Therefore, learned trial Judge was<br \/>\njustified in relying upon the dying declaration. However, as regards<br \/>\nappellant Sonalben  is concerned, except that she was with appellant<br \/>\nSurendrakumar no active role is attributed to her in commission of<br \/>\nthe offence. Therefore, appellant Sonalben cannot be connected with<br \/>\nthe offence on the basis of dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe<br \/>\nprosecution also produced First Information Report lodged by<br \/>\nSavitaben, at Exh. 20. It is alleged  that appellant Sonalben caught<br \/>\nhold of  her, accused Laxmiben poured kerosene  and appellant<br \/>\nSurendrakumar ignited match-stick and set her on fire. It is true<br \/>\nthat F.I.R. implicates both the appellants but on scrutiny of<br \/>\nevidence, it appears that there are discrepancies with regard to  act<br \/>\nattributed to appellant Sonalben.  In the history  given  before the<br \/>\nDoctor, Savitaben  has not stated about  appellant Sonalben. In the<br \/>\ndying declaration  she has stated that  appellant Sonalben set her on<br \/>\nfire  whereas  in the F.I.R.  the deceased has  alleged that<br \/>\nappellant Sonalben caught  hold of her. In view of this,  the<br \/>\nprosecution case for appellant Sonalben becomes doubtful.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tAs<br \/>\nregards appellant Surendrakumar, F.I.R., history  before the Doctor<br \/>\nand dying declaration, in detail, describes the role played by him in<br \/>\nthe offence. All these documents consistently state that he was<br \/>\nresponsible for the burn injuries. Therefore, it is difficult to<br \/>\nbelieve  that he was not involved  in the offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tThe<br \/>\nprosecution examined Dr. Madhusudan Atmaram Patel at Exh. 16 who<br \/>\nperformed postmortem, at Exh.16 and also produced postmortem report<br \/>\nat Exh. 17. Postmortem report Exh. 17 indicates that  the deceased<br \/>\nhad sustained  burn injuries and the cause of death was  septicaemia<br \/>\nas a result of burn injuries.  In light of this, it is proved beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt  that the injuries sustained  by the deceased   were<br \/>\nhomicidal in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tThe<br \/>\nappellants have examined  defence witnesses D.W.1   Pushpaben<br \/>\nNarendrakumar  Exh. 44, D.W.2 Nitaben Triloksinh  Exh. 46, D.W. 3<br \/>\nSaraswatiben Ramkishan Exh. 48 and  D.W. 4 Murlidhar Nathmal Sevani<br \/>\nExh. 52.  D.W.1.  Pushpaben Narendrakumar   is the sister of<br \/>\ndeceased Savitaben. She has stated that  she does not know as to how<br \/>\nSavitaben sustained  burn injuries.  D.W.2 Nitaben  Triloksinh Exh.<br \/>\n44  is the daughter of deceased Savitaben. She has tried to support<br \/>\nthe defence version.\tIt appears from her evidence that  when the<br \/>\nwitness and her brother  were standing outside their  house,<br \/>\nSavitaben came out  in burning condition. Therefore   the witness was<br \/>\nnot present at the time of the occurrence.  Similarly, D.W. 3<br \/>\nSaraswatiben Ramkishan Exh. 48 and  D.W. 4 Murlidhar Nathmal Sevani<br \/>\nExh. 52 have stated that they do not know as to how Savitaben<br \/>\nsustained  burn injuries. Therefore,  the defence witnesses  do not<br \/>\nrender any support to the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tIn<br \/>\nview of above, the dying declaration  in the form of F.I.R., history<br \/>\nof burn injuries given by the deceased to the Doctor and the dying<br \/>\ndeclaration  recorded by the Executive Magistrate are consistent  and<br \/>\nimplicate appellant Surendrakumar. Therefore, learned trial Judge was<br \/>\njustified in  relying upon such evidence and  no interference is<br \/>\nwarranted in the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing<br \/>\nappellant Surendrakumar. As regards appellant Sonalben is concerned,<br \/>\nthe prosecution evidence is shaky. There are glaring discrepancies<br \/>\nin the evidence. Therefore, appellant Sonalben is required to be<br \/>\nacquitted by giving benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the present appeal is partly allowed, The judgment and<br \/>\norder of conviction and sentence of    appellant<br \/>\nNo. 2 Surendrakumar  @   Kakubhai Ramkishan Varma  passed on<br \/>\n17-01-2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court,<br \/>\nAhmedabad in Sessions Case No.12 of 1997 for the offence punishable<br \/>\nu\/s 302   of the I.P. Code is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as appellant No. 1   Sonalben Sashikant Bhatt is concerned,<br \/>\njudgment and order  convicting and sentencing   her  passed on<br \/>\n17-01-2001 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court,<br \/>\nAhmedabad in Sessions Case No.12 of 1997 for the offence punishable<br \/>\nu\/ss 302 read with Section 34  of the I.P. Code is set aside and she<br \/>\nis acquitted of the charge levelled against her. She is on bail,<br \/>\nhence her bail bond stands cancelled. Fine, if paid, be returned to<br \/>\nher.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nmuddamal be disposed of as directed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Bhagwati<br \/>\nPrasad, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Bankim<br \/>\nN. Mehta, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\/JVSatwara\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/7720\/2001 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 77 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of [&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-54576","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>Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - 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\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-20T02:16:59+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\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T02:16:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1805,\"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\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-20T02:16:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - 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\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-20T02:16:59+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\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T02:16:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008"},"wordCount":1805,"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\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008","name":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-20T02:16:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sonalben-vs-the-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sonalben vs The on 14 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/54576","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=54576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}