{"id":62126,"date":"2007-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-11-11T07:30:11","modified_gmt":"2015-11-11T02:00:11","slug":"sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  616 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSheik Rafi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Andhra Pradesh & Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.  5952 of 2006]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant herein and the deceased said Shaik Baji were brothers.
\nPW-3 (Abdul Munaff) and PW-4 (Shaik Abdul Ghouse) were also brothers.
\nPW-2 is the mother of the appellant and the deceased.   They are resident of
\nvillage Nandula Peth, in the town of Tenali in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
\nThe family was owner of a shopping complex.   Deceased was running his
\npump repairing business in one of the shop rooms situated at the first floor
\nof the said Complex.    Deceased was allegedly insisting for partition of the
\njoint property.   In the morning of the fateful day i.e. 9.11.1998, he allegedly
\npicked up a quarrel with PW-2 in regard to his share in the property.  On
\nrefusal to do so, she was allegedly assaulted.   A quarrel also allegedly took
\nplace by and between the deceased and the appellant at about 5 p.m. on the
\nsaid day.  Appellant chased him with a knife.   The deceased ran and came in
\nfront of the casualty room of the hospital at Tenali,  whereafter Appellant is
\nsaid to have caught and inflicted injuries by stabbing him indiscriminately.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-1 (P. Subbarao), a constable working in Pattabipuram Police
\nStation,  while going to attend to his duties, found some people gathered on
\nthe street, and saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife.  A
\ndriver attached to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer named Konduri Sridhar
\n(PW-7) also came to the scene of occurrence.   PW-1 caught hold of the
\nappellant, and snatched away the knife from his hands.   Officers of the
\nPolice Station were informed by Sridhar (PW-7) about the incident.\n<\/p>\n
\t The deceased, was treated by the casualty staff of the hospital.
\nHowever, PW-1 came to learn there about his death  about 10 minutes.
\nThereafter, Shri K. Venkatarao, PW-15, In charge of the Tenali Police
\nStation, thereafter visited the place of occurrence.  Appellant was handed
\nover to him and a written complaint was lodged by PW-1.   The knife with
\nwhich the offence was committed was also seized.  In regard to the said
\noccurrence, the First Information Report was recorded at about 6.30 p.m.   <\/p>\n
\tUpon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
\nthe chargesheet and the appellant was ultimately put to trial.   He was found
\nto be guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe incident was also witnessed inter alia by PW-5 ( Kota Bosu Babu)
\nand PW-7 (Konduri Sridhar).   Their presence at the scene of occurrence and
\nbeing eye witnesses thereto is not in dispute.  Brothers of the appellant as
\nalso PW-3 and PW4 and also their mother PW-2, however, did not support
\nthe prosecution case,  the reason wherefor, is obvious.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court also found the appellant guilty of commission of the
\nsaid offence and dismissed his appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t  This Court had issued a limited notice in regard to the nature of the
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
\t   Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant would submit that the appellant cannot be said to have committed
\nan offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but only under Part-
\nII of Section 304 thereof.   Backdrop of the events for the purpose of
\ndetermining the nature of the offences, it was urged, must be kept in mind
\nand in this behalf emphasis been laid on the fact that the deceased picked up
\nquarrel with his mother in the morning and with the appellant in the evening
\nin regard to partition of the property.\tIt was also pointed out that the
\ndeceased was a rowdy element.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, would
\nsupport the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe short question which arises for consideration before us, therefore,
\nis as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant was
\nguilty of commission of an offence only under Part-II of Section 304 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and not Section 302 thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tAlthough, in a given case, the number of injuries on the person of the
\ndeceased may not be the determinative factor, the same, however, is
\nrelevant.   19 injuries have been inflicted by the appellant, as had been found
\nby the autopsy surgeon, which are ;\n<\/p>\n
1.\tIncised wound present 5″ above the front of the
\nright wrist size of 1″ x =” x <" Horizontal and
\nAntemortem.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIncised wound present 2″ below the right elbow
\non back side in a size of 5″ x 2″ x =” horizontal
\nantemortem.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIncised wound present 2″ below the right elbow
\njoint front side of 2″ x 1″ x 1\/2″ oblique
\nantemortem.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIncised wound present upper half of right arm
\ninsize of 2″ x 1″ x 1″ horizontal antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIncised wound present in right Epigastric region
\nin a size of 2″ x =” x =” oblique antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAn incised wound present 2″ below the right
\nknee 4″ x 2″ x 2″ horizontal antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIncised wound present middle of the back of
\nright thigh 4″ x 2″ x 2″ vertical antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAn incised wound present right lumbar region
\n3″ x 2″ x 1″ oblique antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAn incised wound present posterior aspect of
\nright knee joint 2″ x2″ x 1\/2″ vertical antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAn abrasion is present on left hand thumb 1″ x
\n1\/2″ antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAn incised wound present in between left index
\nand middle finger 2″ x 2″ antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAn incised wound present medial aspect of
\nmiddle left forearm 1″ x 1″ horizontal antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAn incised wound present back of the left
\nshoulder 2″ x 1\/2″ x 1\/2″ antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIncised wound present left side of the chest
\nabove and nipple 1″x1\/2″ x2 horizontal
\nantemortem penetrating type.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIncised wound present below left axilla >” x
\n1\/2″ x 1\/2″ vertical.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIncised wound present left epigastric region
\nwith  protrusion intestines  antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tAn incised wound present left inguinal region
\n3″ x 1″ x 2″ vertical antemortem.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tAn incised wound present lower half of left
\nthigh 3″ above left knee.  4″ x 2″ x 1″ vertical
\nantemortem.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIncised wound present lateral aspect of left
\nthigh 1″ x 1\/2″ x 1\/2″ vertical antemortem.  ”\n<\/p>\n
\tNature of the injuries and the different parts of the body of the
\ndeceased whereupon the same were inflicted in our opinion clearly go to
\nshow that the knife was indiscriminately used.   Injuries had been caused to
\nvital parts of the body of the deceased namely chest, abdomen.  His lung and
\nlever were also damaged.\n<\/p>\n
\tDeceased evidently intended to cause grievous injuries to the
\ndeceased.   He put resistance thereto as far as possible and in the process
\nsuffered injuries on his arms, finger and thigh.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe deceased was unarmed.  He was merely resisting infliction of
\ninjuries on him by a knife and in the process the appellant also received
\nminor injuries and that too on his thigh, palm and shoulder.   Such minor
\ninjuries received by the appellant were not required to be explained by the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIncident did not take place at or near the house of the appellant.
\nDeceased might have picked up quarrel with his mother in the morning, but
\nthe same by itself cannot be treated to be relevant for the purpose of
\ndetermining the nature of the offence.   Distinction between Section 299 and
\nSection 300 of the Indian Penal Code is well known.   What would amount
\nto a “murder” is stated in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.   What is
\nnecessary for attracting the said provision inter alia would be that if the
\nperson committing the act, knew that it is so imminently dangerous that it
\nmust in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
\ndeath.\n<\/p>\n
\tExceptions to the said rule would be attracted only when the offender
\nis deprived of his power of self control which is caused by grave and sudden
\nprovocation by the deceased or any other person, or by mistake or accident.
\nExceptions appended to Section 300 are subject to the provisos contained
\ntherein.   Vivian Bose, J. in  Virsa Singh v State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC
\n465], stated the law thus;\n<\/p>\n
“(12) To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove
\nthe following facts before it can bring a case under
\nS. 300, “thirdly”;\n<\/p>\n
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a
\nbodily injury is present;\n<\/p>\n
—Secondly, the nature of the injury must be
\nproved; These are purely objective investigations.\n<\/p>\n
—Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an
\nintention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that
\nis to say, that it was not accidental or
\nunintentional, or that some other kind of injury
\nwas intended.\n<\/p>\n
—Once these three elements are proved to be
\npresent, the enquiry proceeds further and,\n<\/p>\n
—Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the
\ntype just described made up of the three elements
\nset out above is sufficient to cause death in the
\nordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry
\nis purely objective and inferential and has nothing
\nto do with the intention of the offender.\n<\/p>\n
(13) Once these four elements are established by
\nthe prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on
\nthe prosecution throughout) the offence is murder
\nunder S. 300, “thirdly”. It does not matter that
\nthere was no intention to cause death. It does not
\nmatter that there was no intention even to cause an
\ninjury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in
\nthe ordinary course of nature (not that there is any
\nreal distinction between the two). It does not even
\nmatter that there is no knowledge that an act of that
\nkind will be likely to cause death. Once the
\nintention to cause the bodily injury actually found
\nto be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is
\npurely objective and the only question is whether,
\nas a matter of purely objective inference, the injury
\nis sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
\ncause death. No one has a licence to run around
\ninflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death
\nin the ordinary course of nature and claim that they
\nare not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of
\nthat kind, they must face the consequences; and
\nthey can only escape if it can be shown, or
\nreasonably deduced that the injury was accidental
\nor otherwise unintentional. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Vadla Chandraiah v State of A.P. [2006 (14) SCALE 108], this
\nCourt stated the law, thus,
\n“13.  The issue as to whether the case would fall
\nunder Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Part-II
\nthereof or not should be judged keeping in view
\nthe aforementioned factual backdrop.   For the said
\npurpose, the term ‘evidence brought on records’
\nmust be considered in its entirety.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSee also Chandrappa & Ors. v State of Karnataka [2007 (3) SCALE
\n90].\n<\/p>\n
\tEach case, therefore, must be judged on its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
\tStrong reliance has been placed by Mr. Parekh on Sukhbir Singh v
\nState of Haryana [(2002) 3 SCC 327], wherein this Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The High Court has also found that the
\noccurrence had taken place upon a sudden quarrel
\nbut as the appellant was found to have acted in a
\ncruel and unusual manner, he was not given the
\nbenefit of such exception.   For holding him to
\nhave acted in a cruel and unusual manner, the High
\nCourt relied upon the number of injuries and their
\nlocation on the body of the deceased.   In the
\nabsence of the existence of common object, the
\nappellant cannot be held responsible for the other
\ninjuries caused to the person of the deceased.   He
\nis proved to have inflicted two blows on the person
\nof the deceased which were sufficient in the
\nordinary course of nature to cause his death.  The
\ninfliction of the injuries and their nature proves the
\nintention of the appellant but causing of such two
\ninjuries cannot be termed to be either in a cruel or
\nunusual manner. All fatal injuries resulting in
\ndeath cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the
\npurposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4
\nof Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were
\ninflicted and the injured had fallen down, the
\nappellant is not shown to have inflicted any other
\ninjury upon his person when he was in a helpless
\nposition.   It is proved that in the heat of passion
\nupon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the
\naccused who was armed with bhala caused injuries
\nat random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual
\nmanner.”\n<\/p>\n
\tApparently the said decision was rendered on its own facts.   We may,
\nhowever, notice that it came to be considered in Vadla Chandraiah (supra),
\nThe distinctive feature herein are the injuries which have been caused in a
\ncruel and unusual manner.  Apart from the purported quarrel picked up by
\nthe deceased with his mother, there is no other immediate provocation which
\ncan be said to be the immediate cause leading to the assault.  The deceased
\nwas chased and the injuries have been inflicted on a main road and that too
\nbefore a hospital.   It was caused in the evening before a large number of
\npersons.   He could have been caught and disarmed only by a constable.
\nEvidently others including PW-5 and PW-7 who had been witnessing the
\noccurrence, did not even dare to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\tNineteen injuries caused in quick succession  cannot be  said to have
\nbeen caused as a result of grave and sudden provocation.   The very fact that
\nso many injuries were caused in quick succession and particularly where the
\ndeceased being unarmed and in a helpless situation, is sufficient to indicate
\nthat Sec. 300 “Thirdly” is attracted in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance has also been placed by Mr. Parekh on Ram Swarup and
\nOthers v State of Haryana etc. [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 344].   That was a case
\nwhere a plea of right of self defence was raised.  In that case a fight between
\ntwo parties took place.   Keeping in view the evidences brought on record,
\nthis Court opined that the High Court adopted a wrong approach for judging
\nthe case of bilateral clash in regard to the question as to which party was the
\naggressor.     Having regard to the nature of defence raised therein, viz. right
\nof self defence, number of injuries were found to be not a relevant factor for
\ndetermination as to whether prosecution party or the accused party was the
\naggressor.  This Court merely laid down that the question must be
\ndetermined on the factual matrix of each case.   The ratio of the said
\ndecision, therefore, is clearly not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the prosecution has brought
\nmaterials on record to prove the charge of murder against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, there is no merit in this appeal.  It is dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 616 of 2007 PETITIONER: Sheik Rafi RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-62126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-11T02:00:11+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T02:00:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2411,\"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\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T02:00:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-11T02:00:11+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T02:00:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007"},"wordCount":2411,"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\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007","name":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T02:00:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sheik-rafi-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sheik Rafi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr on 24 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/62126","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=62126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}