{"id":57211,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-11T15:42:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-11T10:12:18","slug":"state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\/1396\/1986\t 5\/ 5\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. 1396 of 1986\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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 ?    \n\t\t\tNO\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHARIJAN\nPAMA RANA - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nPUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR RR TRIVEDI for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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 BHAGWATI PRASAD\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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis<br \/>\nis an appeal filed against acquittal award passed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Rajkot at Gondal, on 23.5.1986 in Sessions<br \/>\nCase No. 50 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts of the case are that on 31.7.1985 the accused Harjan Pama Rana<br \/>\nof Pipalvav who happens to be husband of Jayaben, visited the house<br \/>\nof brother of said Jayaben at Arab Timbdi. Thereafter,  after having<br \/>\ndinner at 8 O&#8217;clock he went to the field with Bodha. It is further<br \/>\nstated in the complaint that in the morning at about 2.30 hours his<br \/>\nsister came home and inquired about her husband when it is said that<br \/>\nyesterday her husband had quarreled with Bodha and thereafter her<br \/>\nhusband gave knife blow and killed Bodha. In the said scuffle he also<br \/>\nreceived some injuries on his hands. On this and other facts,<br \/>\ncomplaint was filed which was investigated by the police. After<br \/>\ninvestigation, chargesheet  was filed against the respondent for the<br \/>\noffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and<br \/>\nunder Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act read with Section 37.<br \/>\nAfter committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the respondent<br \/>\ndid not plead guilty. Consequently, charge was framed. After<br \/>\nconsidering the entire evidence, vide judgement and order dated<br \/>\n23.5.1986, the accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted of<br \/>\nthe charges punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by the said judgement, the State preferred the appeal on<br \/>\nvarious grounds. It is contended before us that perusing  the version<br \/>\nof witnesses and extra judicial confession which is corroborated by<br \/>\nother evidence namely the evidence of complainant Dahya Mapa,<br \/>\nLakhuben and Hansaben, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have<br \/>\ngiven benefit of doubt. It was further contended that perusing the<br \/>\nmedical certificate of the injuries it is clear from evidence of<br \/>\nMedical Officer that the injuries are possible by muddammal knife<br \/>\nwhich was recovered during the discovery. It is further contended<br \/>\nblood-stained clothes were discovered at the instance of the accused<br \/>\nand serological report corroborate the blood of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\nsaid judgement is supported by learned advocate Shri Trivedi who<br \/>\nappeared on behalf of the original accused and contended that extra<br \/>\njudicial confession of the accused before PW-2 Jayaben is not<br \/>\nbelievable because there are material contradiction and improvement<br \/>\ninto the complaint as well as the said extra judicial confession, as<br \/>\nsought to be relied upon by the prosecution. The circumstances, which<br \/>\nare obtaining on records, do not corroborate the evidence which are<br \/>\nlaid before the Court. Jayaben PW-2 in her statement deposed that<br \/>\naccused came at the residence at about 11 O&#8217;clock and said that he<br \/>\nkilled Bodha and thereafter he said to her to prepare dinner which he<br \/>\nate hurriedly and thereafter in the morning at about 4 O&#8217;clock<br \/>\nJayaben was made to wake up and she prepared tea. Thereafter, she<br \/>\ncame to Arab Timdi and reported about the incident. However, the<br \/>\ncomplainant says in his complaint that at 2.30 hours in the morning<br \/>\nJayaben came and reported the incident to her Mother Lakhuben. There<br \/>\nare material improvements in her deposition before the Court. The<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge has clearly pointed out the same in his<br \/>\njudgement and also found that recovery of the blood stained clothes<br \/>\nand knife is doubtful because recovery of the knife from the heap of<br \/>\nthe fodder is not supported by evidence of panchas and other evidence<br \/>\nof investigating officer Shri Ratho. Perusing the entire judgement,<br \/>\nthe learned Sessions Judge has point out contradiction, improvement<br \/>\nin the evidence of witnesses also.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned counsel appearing for the parties. In our considered<br \/>\nopinion the case rests squarely on the piece of evidence which is<br \/>\nextra judicial confession. According to lady PW-2 Jayaben before whom<br \/>\nthe accused is said to have made the confession  in her statement she<br \/>\nstates that accused came to home in the night and asked her to<br \/>\nprepare food. He hurriedly had dinner and  then slept. Thereafter, he<br \/>\nwoke up at about 4.00 O&#8217;clock and asked her to prepare tea. The<br \/>\naccused said that he had killed her brother. There it is said that<br \/>\nextra judicial confession is made. The manner in which the extra<br \/>\njudicial confession is said to have been made to the lady is of a<br \/>\nnature which has a ring of artificial in it. According to the<br \/>\nstatement of the lady, the man is said to have informed that he had<br \/>\ngone to Pipalvav. He killed his brother. Then the lady is said to<br \/>\nhave gone to her mother&#8217;s place. There she said to have the mother<br \/>\nthat ?Sher husband has killed Bodha??. Now if two statements are<br \/>\nreconciled it does not inhere in itself that she informed her mother<br \/>\nthat the accused had informed her that he has killed Bodha. Instead<br \/>\nthe statement to the mother is to the effect that Bodha has been<br \/>\nkilled by her husband. This is mere a statement therein a confession.<br \/>\n In examining the truthfulness of extra judicial confession, one has<br \/>\nto bear in mind that exact words that were given are reproduced and<br \/>\nif after extra judicial confession being made by the accused, she<br \/>\nnarrates the story to mother which is not indirect speech but is a<br \/>\nmere information, then it cannot be said that extra judicial<br \/>\nconfession was made to her as stated by her.  If the nature of extra<br \/>\njudicial confession, as discussed above, is considered then in its<br \/>\nvery nature the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of<br \/>\nevidence. It alone would not be sufficient to be made the basis of<br \/>\nconviction. The nature of confession which is given and the language<br \/>\nused has been deposed by PW-2 Jayaben then there is difference in<br \/>\nexpression. This difference in expression knocks the bottom of extra<br \/>\njudicial confession and makes it unbelievable and if the extra<br \/>\njudicial confession is taken out from the prosecution evidence then<br \/>\nthe recovery of blood stained clothes and knife is hardly sufficient<br \/>\nto sustain any charge more particularly when the blood group of the<br \/>\naccused is not investigated by the Investigating Agency.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid reasons, it would not be prudent to convert the<br \/>\nacquittal as recorded by the trial Court into conviction. Thus, we in<br \/>\nall fairness approve the findings recorded by the learned trial<br \/>\nJudge. Consequently, the appeal being meritless is dismissed. Bail<br \/>\nbond of the accused stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J)<\/p>\n<p>  (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J)<\/p>\n<p>(pkn)<\/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 Harijan on 9 July, 2008 Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1396\/1986 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1396 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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-57211","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 Harijan on 9 July, 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\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-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=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-11T10:12:18+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=\"6 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-harijan-on-9-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-11T10:12:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1097,\"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-harijan-on-9-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\",\"name\":\"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-11T10:12:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 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":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 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\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-11T10:12:18+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-11T10:12:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008"},"wordCount":1097,"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-harijan-on-9-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008","name":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-11T10:12:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-harijan-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Harijan on 9 July, 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\/57211","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=57211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}