{"id":62193,"date":"1953-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953"},"modified":"2016-12-17T11:22:37","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T05:52:37","slug":"akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","title":{"rendered":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 173, \t\t 1954 SCR 435<\/div>\n
Author: N H Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAKHLAKALI HAYATALLI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/12\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  173\t\t  1954 SCR  435\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1957 SC 373\t (6)\n R\t    1962 SC 605\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal  Procedure Code (V of 1898 as amended), s.\t 307-\n Reference to High Court-Proper approach-Jury-Sole Judges  of\n facts-Provided\t verdict  could be arrived at  by  reasonable\n body of men.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   The\tproper\tmethod\tof  approach  in  the  matters\t of\nreferences  under s. 307 of the Criminal Procedure  Code  as\nfinally\t settled is that the High Court will only  interfere\nwith  the  verdict  of\tthe jury if  it\t finds\tthe  verdict\nperverse  in  the sense of  being  unreasonable,  manifestly\nwrong or against the weight of evidence.\n If the facts and circumstances of the case are such that a\nreasonable body of men could arrive at one conclusion or the\n-other,\t it  is not competent to the Sessions Judge  or\t the\nHigh  Court  to\t substitute their verdict in  place  of\t the\nverdict which has been given by the jury.  The jury are\t the\nsole judges of the facts and it is the right of the  accused\nto have the benefit of the verdict of the jury.\t Even if the\nSessions  Judge\t or  the  High\tCourt  would,  if  left\t  to\nthemselves,  have arrived at a different verdict, it is\t not\ncompetent  to the Sessions Judge to make a reference nor  to\nthe High ,Court to accept the same and substitute their\t own\nverdict\t for the -verdict of the jury provided\tthe  verdict\nwas such as could be arrived at by a reasonable body of\t men\non the facts and circumstances of the case.\n Ramanugrah  Singh  v. Emperor (A. 1. R. 1946  P.  C.  151)\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
  CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.  76
\nof 1953.\n<\/p>\n
  Appeal  by special leave against the Judgment\t and  -Order
\ndated  the 16th June, 1952, of the High Court of  judicature
\nat Bombay in Criminal Jury Reference No. 58 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
436<\/span><\/p>\n
H. J. Umrigar for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Porus A. Mehta for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
   1953.   December  9.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\n   BHAGWATI  J.-This  is an appeal by special  leave  from  a
\njudgment of the High Court of judicature at Bombay accepting
\nthe reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater
\nBombay,\t under section 307 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code,
\nand convicting the appellant of an offence under section 326
\nof  the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to\t four  years
\nrigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t case of the prosecution was that at or about  10-30
\nor  11 p.m. on the 25th August, 1951, the complainant  Abdul
\nSatar  was  going towards Dhobi Galli  through\tthe  Bibijan
\nStreet.\t  At the junction of the Chakla Street with  Bibijan
\nStreet,\t he  was attacked by the appellant.   The  appellant
\nfirst  attempted  to strike him on his right  shoulder,\t but
\nAbdul Satar caught hold of his hand.  The appellant released
\nhis hand from the grip of Abdul Satar, went in front of\t him
\nand  stabbed him in two places–one injury was inflicted  at
\nthe level of the 9th and 10th ribs on the left side and\t the
\nother  injury on the left shoulder.  The appellant then\t ran
\naway  and was pursued by several people.  Babu Adam saw\t him
\nat  the corner, of the Chakla Street and the  Masjid  Bunder
\nRoad  and joined the pursuit.  Sub-Inspector  Chawan  joined
\nthe  crowd  chasing the appellant in the Dhobi\tStreet,\t and
\nultimately the appellant was caught at the junction of Dhobi
\nStreet and Nagdevi Street.  The appellant was then taken  to
\nthe police station.  He was taken by the police officers  to
\nthe place where the attack took place and a panchnama of the
\nscene  of the offence was made at five minutes past  one  on
\nthe  26th  August,  1951.   The\t appellant  and\t the  police
\nofficers  returned to the police station and at\t 1-30  a.m.,
\nthat  is within half an hour, another panchnama was made  in
\nrespect\t of  the clothes which the  appellant  was  wearing.
\nAccording to that panchnama there were blood stains
\n437<\/span>
\non the right arm pit, on the front of the and on ‘the  right
\nthigh.\tThere were also ‘blood on the right; side collar and
\non the back of the shirt
\n  The  defence\tput up by the appellant was he was  a  fruit
\nbroker\tand,  after collecting his dues\t from  the  Crawford
\nmarket at 11 p.m.,to he came to the corner of Dhobi  Street,
\nwhen  he  heard the shouts,”chor, chor” and – he  also\tthen
\nshouted\t “chor,\t chor”\tand ran after  the  person  who\t was
\nrunning\t away  in order to catch him.  When he\treached\t the
\njunction  of  Nagdevi  Cross Street, he fell  down  and\t the
\nperson\twho, was running ahead of him rushed into a  gutter.
\nAs  he\twas ahead and members of the Public  were  following
\nhim,  three or four, of them fell on his body after he\tfell
\ndown and when he got up he was caught by two or three  other
\npersons,  who all said that he was the\tman.   Sub-Inspector
\nChawan was one of these persons.  Chawan was suspected;\t to,
\nbe  Ms\taccomplice, but someone said that he  was  a  police
\nofficer and Chawan was then released.  The appellant was put
\ninto the police pilot car which came along and taken to\t the
\npolice\tstation.   He was then taken to the,  scene  of\t the
\noffence\t and  a\t panchnama was drawn there.   He  was  again
\nbrought\t to, the police ‘station thereafter and was made  to
\nsit  in\t the charge room.  As he was feeling  very  hot,  he
\nremoved\t his  shirt  and  kept it  by  his  side.   In\tthe,
\nmeanwhile, a police constable came there and gave him a blow
\non  his\t nose saying, “Do you think this  is  your  father’s
\nresidence  that\t I  you removed your  shirt?   He  thereupon
\nstarted bleeding from his nose, and due to that bleeding his
\nshirt  and  trousers  were, stained with  blood.   The\tsame
\nconstable then asked him to put on the clothes and took\t him
\nto  his\t officer.  He produced the appellant  before  D.  1.
\nKakatkar  who there noticed his clothes.  The  panchas\twere
\ncalled\tand  a\tpanchnama was drawn up in  which  the  blood
\nstains on the shirt and trousers were noted.
\n   The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions  judge
\nand  a common jury.  The prosecution called the evidence  of
\nthe-  complainant Abdul Satar, Babu Adam and  Sub-Inspector,
\nChawan.\t Evidence was led Of an identification parade  which
\nwas held in the
\n6-93 S.P.India\/59
\n438<\/span>
\nhospital  where Abdul Satar was taken from the scene of\t the
\noffence\t and it was proved that Abdul Satar  identified\t the
\nappellant at that identification parade.  Evidence was\talso
\nled of the panch witness who deposed to the panchnama noting
\nthe  blood  stains  on the shirt and  the  trousers  of\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
   The Additional Sessions Judge summed up the case  Against
\nthe  appellant in a charge which was very fair.\t The  charge
\nwas  not’  attacked before the High Court nor before  us  as
\ncontaining  any misdirections or non-directions to the\tjury
\nsuch  as  to  vitiate  the verdict.   The  jury\t after’\t due
\ndeliberation could not be unanimous and pronounced a verdict
\nof not guilty against the appellant by a majority of six  to
\nthree.\t The  Additional Sessions Judge did not\t accept\t the
\nverdict of the ,majority.  He disagreed with the verdict and
\nthought\t that  it was necessary for the ends of\t justice  to
\nsubmit\tthe  case to the High Court and\t accordingly  by  an
\norder of reference dated the 22nd April, 1952, submitted the
\ncase  to  the High Court under section 307 of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
  It is significant to note that prior to the enactment\t ,of
\nBombay Act VI of 1952, sections 305 and 306 of the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code were applicable to the Court of Sessions\t for
\nGreater Bombay.\t It was intended as stated in the objects of
\nthe  Bill  to  provide for a case of  ,disagreement  with  a
\nunanimous verdict of the jury and enable the Sessions  Judge
\nfor Greater Bombay to make a reference under section 307  of
\nthe Criminal Procedure Code even in the case of a  unanimous
\nverdict\t with which he disagreed.  In making  the  amendment
\nhowever\t by the Bombay Act VI of 1952 the  Legislature\ttook
\naway the powers of the Sessions judge “of Greater Bombay  to
\ndischarge  the jury and ,order a retrial of the\t accused  by
\nanother jury even in the case of a majority verdict so\tmuch
\nso that even in a verdict of five to four which was not till
\nthen  an  effective  verdict  the  case\t would\thave  to  be
\nsubmitted  to  the’  High Court under  section\t307  of\t the
\nCriminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
439<\/span><\/p>\n
   The\tHigh  Court  heard the reference  and  came  to\t the
\nconclusion after discussing the evidence on the record that,
\nno  other  conclusion was possible for a  reasonable  person
\nexcept that the appellant  was the assailant of Abdul Satar.
\nThe  High Court accordingly convicted the appellant  of\t the
\noffence\t under\tsection\t 326 of the Indian  Penal  Code\t and
\nsentenced  him\tas above.  The\tappellant  obtained  special
\nleave  to appeal from this court on the 4th February,  1953,
\nand hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
  There\t were  various\tcircumstances  brought\tout  in\t the
\nevidence   of\tthe   prosecution   witnesses\tWhich\twere
\nparticularly  relied upon by the defence.   The\t prosecution
\nfrankly admitted that it had failed to prove any motive\t for
\nthe commission of the offence by the appellant.\t Abdul Satar
\nhad  not  stated  anywhere before he gave  evidence  in\t the
\nSessions  Court\t that  he  had\tany  conversation  with\t the
\nappellant  as to why the latter was inflicting the  injuries
\non  him.   He  however\tstated for the\tfirst  time  in\t the
\nSessions Court that he’ asked the appellant as to why he was
\nstabbing him and the appellant replied that he was doing  it
\nat the instance of a friend of his.  Abdul Satar then stated
\nthat  he was on inimical terms with one Sulaiman and it\t was
\nat the instance of Sulaiman that the appellant inflicted the
\ninjuries  on  his  person.  This was  characterised  by\t the
\ndefence as a pure after-thought in order to supply a  motive
\nfor  the commission of the offence by the appellant  and  it
\nwas  urged  that if Abdul Satar was capable of\tinventing  a
\nstory  for  supplying the motive for the commission  of\t the
\noffence\t by the appellant he -could not certainly be  relied
\nupon even in the identification of the appellant by him.
\n    The weapon of offence was also not found upon the person
\nof the appellant and in spite of a search being made for the
\nsame was not discovered by the police either at or near\t the
\nscene  of the offence.\tNeither Babu Adam nor  Sub-Inspector
\nChawan deposed to having seen the knife in the hands of\t the
\nappellant.   It\t was only Mohamed Safi, a  witness  who\t was
\ndropped by the prosecution and was examined by the defence,
\n440<\/span>
\nbut  treated as a hostile witness even by the  defence,\t who
\nstated\tthat he saw a knife in the hands of  the  appellant.
\nIf Babu Adam’s evidence was to be accepted Mohamed Safi\t was
\nnot telling the truth and if Mohamed Safi’s evidence was: to
\nbe  accepted  Babu Adam was -not telling  the  truth.\tTins
\nconflict  of evidence was therefore, rightly commented\tupon
\nby the defence.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tidentification\tparade also was\t challenged  as\t not
\nproper\tbecause\t it was alleged that mostly ward  boys\twere
\nmixed  up with the appellant when the identification  parade
\nwas  held.   No\t questions  were  addressed  in\t the  cross-
\nexamination  of\t prosecution  witnesses in  regard  to\tthis
\naspect\tof  the\t case  and  the\t Additional  Sessions  Judge
\nobserved  to  the jury that in the absence  of\tsuch  cross-
\nexamination,  not  mulch reliance could be  placed  on\tthis
\ncriticism of the identification parade.\t It may be noted, in
\npassing that even the High observed that “the parade was not
\nas  satisfactory as we expect parades to, be in\t such  cases
\nfurther observed that the, only effect of that fact would be
\nto,  put  them upon guard with regard to  the  -evidence  of
\nAbdul  Satar  and they should not proceed to act  upon\tthat
\nevidence unless it was corroborated.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tblood  stains on the shirt and the trousers  of\t the
\n;appellant  were  ‘not\tobserved in the\t first\tinstance  by
\neither\tBabu  Adam or Sub-Inspector Chawan and it  was\tonly
\nwhen the second panchnama was made at about 1-30 a.m. on the
\n26th August, 1951,, after the appellant was brought back  to
\nthe police station from the scene of the offence that  these
\nblood  stains were noticed and were noted in the  panchnama.
\nThe   existence\t  of  these  blood  stains  was\t  urged\t  as
\ncorroborative  of the testimony of Abdul Satar in so far  as
\nhe  stated  that the appellant caused the  injuries  on\t his
\nperson.\t The defence story of the police constable –  having
\ndealt a blow on the nose of the appellant which led to,\t the
\nbleeding of the nose and the blood; stains on the shirt\t and
\nthe trousers of the appellant was sought to be, negatived by
\npointing  out  the improbability- of  the  police  constable
\nhaving, acted in that manner within,
\n\t\t\t    441<\/span>
\nthe  very  precincts of the police station  The\t prosecution
\ntheory might possibly have explained the blood stains in the
\nright  -arm  pit,  in -front of the shirt  as  well  as\t the
\ntrousers  But,\tthe blood stains on the back  of  the  shirt
\ncould not be easily explained.\tThe blood on the back of the
\nshirt could certainly be explained by the defence theory and
\nthat was a circumstance which was relied upon by the defence
\nas maring the defence version probable.\n<\/p>\n
   These  were the circumstances which were before the\tjury
\nwhen they, deliberated upon the question of the\t criminality
\nof  the appellant, and the only question which, we  have  to
\nconsider  is whether the verdict which they arrived at by  a
\nmajority  of six to three was such as no reasonable body  of
\nmen  could  arrive at on the record of the case\t The  proper
\nmethod\tof  approach  in the  matter  of,  references  under
\nsection 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code was laid down  by
\nthe Privy ‘council in Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor(1),  where
\nthe  Privy  Council resolved the  conflict  ,of\t authorities
\nwhich  was  till then prevalent: in India  and\taccepted,the
\nview  that  the\t High Court will  only\tinterfere  with\t the
\nverdict of the jury if it finds the verdict “perverse in the
\nsense  of  being unreasonable”, “manifestly  wrong”  or\t “as
\nagainst’ the weight of evidence”.  The observations of their
\nLordships  of the Privy Council on the principle  underlying
\nsection\t 307  of the Criminal Procedure Code  may  be  aptly
\nquoted here :-\n<\/p>\n
   “Under  sub-section (1), two conditions, are required  to
\njustify\t a  reference.\t The first,,  that  the\t Judge\tmust
\ndisagree with the verdict of the jury, calls for no comment,
\nsince  it  is obviously the foundation for  any\t Preference.
\nThe second, ‘that the judge must be “clearly of opinion that
\nit  is\tnecessary for, the ‘ends of justice  to\t submit\t the
\ncase”  is  important,  and  in\ttheir  Lord,ships’   opinion
\nprovides  a key to the ‘interpretation Of the section.\t The
\nlegislature  no\t doubt, realised that the  ‘introduction  of
\ntrial  by  jury in the mofussil would be  experimental,\t and
\nmight  lead  to miscarriages of justice through\t jurors,  in
\ntheir ignorance and inexperience,
\n    (1)\t  (1946) A.I.R. 1946 P. C. 151.\n<\/p>\n
442<\/span><\/p>\n
returning  erroneous verdicts.\tTheir Lordships\t think\tthat
\nthe  section was intended to guard against this danger,\t and
\nnot  to\t enable\t the Sessions judge and the  High  Court  to
\ndeprive jurors, acting properly within their, powers, of the
\nright  to  determine the facts con’ferred upon them  by\t the
\nCode.\tIf  the jury have reached the  conclusion  upon\t the
\nevidence  which a reasonable body of men might reach, it  is
\nnot  necessary\tfor the ends of justice\t that  the  Sessions
\nJudge should refer the case to the High Court merely because
\nhe  himself would have reached a different  conclusion\tupon
\nthe  facts, since lie is not the tribunal to  determine\t the
\nfacts.\tHe must go further than that and be of opinion\tthat
\nthe  verdict  is one which no reasonable body of  men  could
\nhave  reached  upon the evidence.  The powers  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in dealing with the reference are contained  in\tsub-
\nsection\t (3).\tIt may exercise any of the powers  which  it
\nmight exercise -upon an appeal, and this includes the  power
\nto call fresh evidence conferred by section 428.  The  court
\nmust  consider the whole case and give due weight to  ;\t the
\nopinions of the Sessions ‘Judge and jury, and then acquit or
\nconvict\t  the  accused.\t  In  their  Lordships’\t view,\t the
\nparamount  consideration in the High Court must’ be  whether
\nthe  ends of  justice -require that the verdict of  the jury
\nshould\tbe set aside.  In general, if the evidence  is\tsuch
\nthat  it can properly support a verdict either of guilty  or
\nnot  guilty, according to the view taken of it by the  trial
\ncourt,\tand if the jury take one view of the  evidence\tand,
\nthe judge thinks thatthey  should have taken the  other,
\nthe view of thejury  must prevail, since they, are  the
\njudges of fact. In such a case a reference is not justified,
\nand  it is only by accepting their view that the High  Court
\ncan  give  due\tweight\tto the opinion\tof  the\t jury.\t If,
\nhowever, the High Court considers that upon the evidence  no
\nreasonable  body  of men could have reached  the  conclusion
\narrived\t at by, the jury, then the reference  was  justified
\nand   the   ends  of  justice  require\tthat   the   verdict
\ndisregarded.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    443<\/span><\/p>\n
  We are of the opinion that this is the correct method,  of
\napproach  in references under section 307 of the  Criminal,,
\nProcedure Code.\t If the facts and circumstances of the\tcase
\nare such that a reasonable body of men could arrive at ‘the”
\none  conclusion\t or the other,- it is not competent  to\t the
\nSessions Judge or the High Court to substitute their verdict
\nin  place of the verdict which has been given by  the  jury.
\nThe  jury  are the sole judges of the facts and\t it  is\t the
\nright  of the accused to have the benefit of the verdict  of
\nthe  jury.  Even if the Sessions Judge or the I\t High  Court
\nwould  if  left to themselves have arrived  at\ta  different
\nverdict it is not competent to the Sessions Judge to make  a
\nreference  nor\tto  the High Court to accept  the  same\t and
\nsubstitute  their  own verdict for the verdict of  the\tjury
\nprovided  the verdict was such as could be arrived at  by  a
\nreasonable body of men on the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
   Having regard to the position which we have set out above
\nwe  are\t clearly  of the I opinion that\t on  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of  the\t‘case before us\t there\twere  enough
\nmaterials  before  the jury which would enable the  jury  to
\ncome  to  one  conclusion or the other\tin  regard  to\t‘the
\ncriminality  of the appellant.\tSix out of the nine,  jurors
\ncame to the conclusion that the appellant, was not guilty of
\nthe  offence with, which he was charged.  Three out  of\t the
\nnine  jurors  came  to\tan opposite  conclusion\t and  it  is
\nimpossible  in\tthe  circumstances of the  case\t for  us  to
\ncharacterise the one or the other of the conclusions reached
\nby  the\t members of the jury as -perverse in  the  sense  of
\nbeing unreasonable or manifestly wrong or against the weight
\nof  evidence.\tThe  verdict reached  by  the  majority\t was
\ncertainly  a  verdict which upon the evidence  on  record  a
\nreasonable body of men could have reached and in our opinion
\nthe ,reference was not competent.\n<\/p>\n
   The result therefore is that the appeal will be  allowed,
\nthe judgment of the High Court on, reference set aside,\t the
\nmajority verdict of  the jury Pronouncing the appellant -not
\nguilty of the offence with which he  was
\n444<\/span>
\ncharged accepted and the appellant acquitted and  discharged
\nand forthwith set at
\n\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaktha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 173, 1954 SCR 435 Author: N H Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: AKHLAKALI HAYATALLI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/12\/1953 BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. MUKHERJEA, B.K. CITATION: […]<\/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-62193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAkhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - 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\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T05:52:37+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T05:52:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\"},\"wordCount\":3059,\"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\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\",\"name\":\"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T05:52:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953\"}]},{\"@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":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - 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\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T05:52:37+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953","datePublished":"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T05:52:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953"},"wordCount":3059,"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\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953","name":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T05:52:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhlakali-hayatalli-vs-the-state-of-bombay-on-9-december-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akhlakali Hayatalli vs The State Of Bombay on 9 December, 1953"}]},{"@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\/62193","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=62193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}