{"id":63938,"date":"1996-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996"},"modified":"2017-11-16T02:52:05","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T21:22:05","slug":"state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (3),    570\t  1996 SCALE  (3)85<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. NOORIE @ NOOR JAHAN &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/03\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (3)   570\t  1996 SCALE  (3)85\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nG.B PATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  by grant  of\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed<br \/>\nagainst the  order of  acquittal passed by the High Court of<br \/>\nAllahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The four  respondents were\t tried\tfor  offences  under<br \/>\nSections  147,\t148,  302\/149  and  201\/511  I.P.C.  on\t the<br \/>\nallegation  that   they\t along\twith  some  unknown  persons<br \/>\nmercilessly assaulted  deceased Bachan\tShah with knives and<br \/>\nlathis and  lathis and\tthereafter carried  a cycle  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and  dragged the  dead body  of the deceased to the<br \/>\nnearby grove and left it in a pit and escaped from the place<br \/>\nof  occurrence.\t  The  learned\t Additional  Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nconvicted 4  respondents under Section 147 and 302 read with<br \/>\nSection 149  I.P.C. and\t further convicted respondents Inder<br \/>\nDutt, Raghu  Raj and  Bikram under  Sections  148,  302\t and<br \/>\n201\/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent Noori, however,<br \/>\nwas acquitted  of the  charge under  Section 201\/511 against<br \/>\nher. All  of them  were sentenced to life imprisonment under<br \/>\nSection 302\/149\t and respondent\t Noori was further sentenced<br \/>\nto undergo  for one  year under\t Section 147  and the rest 3<br \/>\nrespondents were  sentenced under  Section 148 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code  and R.I.  for one  year under Section 201\/511 of<br \/>\nthe Indian  Penal Code.\t Sentences have been directed to run<br \/>\nconcurrently. The respondents then filed appeal and the High<br \/>\nCourt acquitted all of them for the charges levelled against<br \/>\nthem and hence this present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Prosecution case  in  nutshell  is\t that  deceased\t Ram<br \/>\nBharosey alias\tBachan Shah  had agone\tto his\ttubewell  at<br \/>\n10.30 A.M.  on\t25.2.1975  for\tgetting\t the  same  repaired<br \/>\nthrough the  mechanic, Latta  Mallah P.W.  2. As  he did not<br \/>\ncome home  to take his lunch till 2.30 P.M. his nephew Iqbal<br \/>\nNarain P.W.  1 went to call his uncle for food. When both of<br \/>\nthem were returning respondent Noori stopped the deceased on<br \/>\nthe way\t and started  talking to  him. In  the meantime\t the<br \/>\nthree other  respondents along with two unknown persons came<br \/>\narmed with  knives and\tlathis and  started  assaulting\t the<br \/>\ndeceased.  While     the   deceased  was   being  assaulted,<br \/>\nrespondent Noori  was standing.\t P.W.  2  who  followed\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and  P.W. 1  soon reached  the\t spot  and  saw\t the<br \/>\noccurrence. Noori  then left  the place of occurrence. Noori<br \/>\nthen left  the\tplace  of  occurrence.\tRest  of  the  three<br \/>\nrespondents  after   mercilessly  assaulting   the  deceased<br \/>\ndragged the  dead body towards the grove and threw it into a<br \/>\npit, and  left the  place. The informant Iqbal Narain P.W. 1<br \/>\nprepared a  written report and lodged the same at Loni Katra<br \/>\nPolice Station\tat 4.30\t P.M. On  receipt of the said report<br \/>\nwhich was  treated as  F.I.R. P.W. 7 registered the case and<br \/>\nstarted investigation.\tOn reaching the place of occurrence,<br \/>\nhe held\t the inquest and then sent another officer to search<br \/>\nfor the\t accused persons  but the  accused persons  were not<br \/>\nfound. A  dog squad  was then  sent to\ttrace  out  the\t two<br \/>\nunknown persons\t and the  said dog went upto the door of the<br \/>\naccused Raghu  Raj which was found locked. The dead body was<br \/>\nsent for  postmortem examination.  The investigating officer<br \/>\nseized\tincriminating\tarticles  and\tsent  for   Chemical<br \/>\nExamination.  Witnesses\t were  examined\t under\tSection\t 161<br \/>\nCr.P.C. Finally\t on completion of investigation charge sheet<br \/>\nwas filed.  On being  committed the  respondents stood their<br \/>\ntrial. The  defence plea  is one  of denial. The prosecution<br \/>\nexamined 9  witnesses in  all of whom PWs 1, 2 and 3 are eye<br \/>\nwitnesses to  the occurrence.  PW. 6  is the  doctor who had<br \/>\nconducted autopsy  over the dead body of the deceased. PW. 4<br \/>\nis a  witness to  the inquest  as well as witness to certain<br \/>\nseizure made  in the  course of\t investigation. PW. 5 is the<br \/>\nconstable who  carried the  dead  body\tto  the\t morgue\t for<br \/>\npostmortem examination.\t PW. 7 is the police officer who had<br \/>\nrecorded the FIR and investigated into the offence. PW. 8 is<br \/>\na constable  and formal witness. PW. 9 is the Head Constable<br \/>\nwho had\t made some  entries at the Police Station on receipt<br \/>\nof the\twritten\t report.  Prosecution  also  proved  several<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence  of which Ext. 26 is the FIR, Ext. 9 is<br \/>\nthe postmortem report of the deceased, Ext. 40 is the Report<br \/>\nof Chemical  Examiner and  Ext. 39 is the Serologist Report.<br \/>\nThe defence  also examined one witness as PW. 1. The learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions  Judge on  a  scruitiny  of\t the  entire<br \/>\nmaterials on  record come  to the conclusion, mostly relying<br \/>\nupon the  evidence of  3 witnesses PWs. 1, 2 and 3, that the<br \/>\nprosecution has\t been able  to establish  the charges beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the<br \/>\naccused persons\t as already stated. On appeal by the accused<br \/>\nrespondents the\t High Court  though accepted the prosecution<br \/>\nstory that the deceased was murdered in the Galiayar and his<br \/>\nbody was  shifted to the pit where it was dumped but held it<br \/>\nwas not\t established that the said murder had been witnessed<br \/>\nby the\talleged\t witnesses  namely  PWs.  1,  2\t and  3\t and<br \/>\ntherefore the  possibility that the deceased was murdered by<br \/>\nothers and  the appellants were implicated on mere suspicion<br \/>\nand sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge<br \/>\nand acquitted the accused respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Pramod\t Swarup, the  learned counsel  appearing for<br \/>\nthe appellant  contended that  the reasonings  given by\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court  in\tdiscarding  the\t prosecution  story  and  in<br \/>\ndisbelieving the  oral testimony  of PWs  1 to\t3 are wholly<br \/>\nunsustainable in law and consequently the order of acquittal<br \/>\nis vitiated.  The learned  counsel also\t contented that\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court wholly erred in law in discarding the prosecution<br \/>\ncase  on   the\tbasis\tof  certain   infirmities   in\t the<br \/>\ninvestigation and  this has resulted in gross miscarriage of<br \/>\njustice\t by  ordering  acquittal  of  the  respondents.\t The<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant, however,  fairly stated<br \/>\nthat so far as respondent Noori is concerned on the basis of<br \/>\nevidence on  record it\twould be  difficult  to\t assail\t her<br \/>\nacquittal made\tby the High Court. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing  for the  respondents on  the\t other\thand<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tin view\t of the\t proved animosities  of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses  and in  view of the gross infirmities<br \/>\nin their  evidence, the\t High Court  was fully\tjustified in<br \/>\ndiscarding prosecution\tcase. According\t to Mr. Ranjit Kumar<br \/>\nthough prosecution  case so  far as death of Ram Bharosay is<br \/>\nconcerned is  true but\tthe  prosecution  case\tas  unfolded<br \/>\nthrough the witnesses PWs 1 to 3 and the manner in which the<br \/>\ndeath occurred\tin not\ttrue  and  therefore  the  order  of<br \/>\nacquittal passed  by the High Court should not be interfered<br \/>\nwith by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view  of the rival stand of the parties the question<br \/>\narises for consideration is whether the evidence of PWs 1 to<br \/>\n3 can be discarded on the grounds advanced by the High Court<br \/>\nor not?\t Before scrutinizing  the evidence  of\tthese  three<br \/>\nwitnesses it would be appropriate to examine the correctness<br \/>\nof the\treasonings advanced  by the High Court in discarding<br \/>\nthe prosecution\t case. But  before doing so we may first set<br \/>\nout the\t case against  respondent Noori.  The only  evidence<br \/>\nagainst Noori  was that\t while the  deceased and  PW. 1 were<br \/>\ncoming she  stopped them on the way and talked with deceased<br \/>\nand at\tthat point  of time  other accused  persons came and<br \/>\nassaulted the  deceased. There is not an iota of material on<br \/>\nrecord to indicate any prior meeting of Noori with the other<br \/>\naccused persons nor is there any material to implicate Noori<br \/>\nin any\tway with the occurrence. Noori has not been assigned<br \/>\nany role in the assault of the deceased. In this view of the<br \/>\nmatter the  order of  acquittal of  respondent Noori  by the<br \/>\nHigh Court cannot be interfered with by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court came to the concisions that PW. 2 could<br \/>\nnot have reached the place of occurrence simultaneously with<br \/>\nPW. 1  and the\tdeceased since\the had to screw one bolt and<br \/>\nlock the  tube-well which in the process would have taken at<br \/>\nleast five minutes. It is neither the evidence of PW. 1 that<br \/>\nPW. 2  came with   them to the place of occurrence not is it<br \/>\nthe evidence  of PW.  2 that  he was along with the deceased<br \/>\nand PW.\t 1. On\tthe other hand the evidence of PW. 2 is that<br \/>\nafter the  deceased and\t PW. 1\tleft the  tube-well,  PW.  2<br \/>\ntightened the  bolt and\t left for home and while he was at a<br \/>\ndistance of  100 paces from the place of occurrence he heard<br \/>\nshouting of  PW. 1 and then he ran and on reaching the place<br \/>\nof occurrence he saw that deceased had fallen down and there<br \/>\nrespondents, Inder Dutt, Vikram and Raghuraj were assaulting<br \/>\nthe deceased  with knives. The conclusion of the High Court,<br \/>\ntherefore, is based upon total misreading of the evidence of<br \/>\nPWs  1\t &amp;  2\tThe  High   Court  has\tcommented  upon\t the<br \/>\ninvestigation as  to why  the fact  whether PW. 2 was at all<br \/>\nengaged in  the repair\twork of\t the tube-well\thad not been<br \/>\ninvestigated into.  In our  considered opinion\tit is wholly<br \/>\nuntenable  approach   and  had\t no   relevance\t  with\t the<br \/>\nappreciation of\t the evidence  PW.  2  The  High  Court\t had<br \/>\ncommented upon\tthe evidence  of PW. 2 on the ground that at<br \/>\none place  he said  that he  was called by the investigation<br \/>\nofficer at  about the time of sun set whereas at other place<br \/>\nhe said\t that he  was called by the investigating officer at<br \/>\nnight and  on this  score  the\tHigh  Court  jumped  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion that\t PW. 2 cannot be accepted to be a witness to<br \/>\nthe occurrence.\t We are\t unable to  accept this reasoning of<br \/>\nthe High  Court. Instead  of focussing\tits intention to the<br \/>\ntestimony  of\tthe  witness   with  regard  to\t the  actual<br \/>\noccurrence the\tHigh Court has gone around the periphery and<br \/>\nwithout even  discussing anything  so far  as occurrence  is<br \/>\nconcerned has  discarded  the  testimony  and  in  our\tview<br \/>\nerroneously. So\t far as\t PW. 3\tis concerned  the High Court<br \/>\ndiscarded his  testimony by  comparing his evidence with the<br \/>\nevidence of PW. 2 and on coming to a conclusion the he could<br \/>\nnot have seen Noori clearly from the place of occurrence. As<br \/>\nstated earlier\tthe very  approach  of\tthe  High  Court  in<br \/>\nappreciating the  evidence has\tbeen rather  faulty  and  no<br \/>\nattention has  been bestowed by the High Court in discussing<br \/>\nthe basic prosecution case. The conclusion of the High Court<br \/>\nthat the  evidence of PW. 3 does not inspire confidence is a<br \/>\nwrong conclusion  without discussing  his evidence  and\t the<br \/>\nsaid  conclusion   is  wholly\tunsustainable  in   law.  On<br \/>\ndiscussion of  medical evidence,  the High Court came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that\t the ocular version of the evidence does not<br \/>\nreceive complete  support and corroboration from the medical<br \/>\nevidence. But  we are  unable to  sustain this conclusion of<br \/>\nthe High  Court also.  The Doctor  PW. 6  who conducted\t the<br \/>\npostmortem examination\tfound as many as 9 punctured wounds,<br \/>\n3 incised wounds, one lacerated wound and three abrasions on<br \/>\ndifferent parts\t of the body of the deceased. The High Court<br \/>\naccepted the  prosecution case that the punctured wounds and<br \/>\nincised wounds\tcould be  caused by  a knive  but since\t the<br \/>\nlacerated wound\t which was  found between right index finger<br \/>\nand thumb  measuring 3\tcm x  2 cm  could not be caused by a<br \/>\nknive, the  High Court\tjumped to  the conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nmedical evidence  does not corroborate the ocular statement.<br \/>\nWe find\t it difficult to sustain this conclusion. Commenting<br \/>\nupon the  investigation the  High Court\t observed that it is<br \/>\nnot free  from taint. The aforesaid conclusion is based upon<br \/>\nthe fact  as to why the dog was given a smell of the bicycle<br \/>\nof the\tdeceased instead  of the  piece of  Dhoti which\t had<br \/>\nallegedly  got\tstuck  to  a  tree.  The  further  reasoning<br \/>\nadvanced is  as to  what was  the necessity  of dragging the<br \/>\ndeceased and  throwing the  dead body into a pit. Then again<br \/>\nthe High Court observed that the bicycle of the deceased had<br \/>\nbeen touched  by Noori\talone apart  from  deceased then how<br \/>\nthe dog\t after smelling\t the bicycle  proceeded towards\t the<br \/>\nhouse of  Raghuraj. In\tour considered\topinion the  alleged<br \/>\ninfirmities found  out by the High Court neither can be held<br \/>\nto be  sufficient to  hold the\tinvestigation to be  tainted<br \/>\nnor  can   it  be   taken  into\t account  to  discredit\t the<br \/>\npersecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court having acquitted the accused persons on<br \/>\nappreciation of\t the evidence, we have ourselves scrutinised<br \/>\nthe evidence  of  PWs.\t1,  2,\tand  3.\t The  conclusion  is<br \/>\nirresistible that  their evidence  on  material\t particulars<br \/>\nhave been brushed aside by the High Court by entering in the<br \/>\nrealm of  conjecture and  fanciful speculation\twithout even<br \/>\ndiscussing  the\t evidence  more\t particularly  the  evidence<br \/>\nrelating to  the basic prosecution case. While assessing and<br \/>\nevaluating the\tevidence of  eye witnesses  the\t court\tmust<br \/>\nadhere to two principles, namely whether in the circumstance<br \/>\nof the\tcase it\t was possible  for the\teye  witness  to  be<br \/>\npresent\t at   the  scene   and\twhether\t there\tis  anything<br \/>\ninherently improbable  or unreliable.  The High Court in our<br \/>\nopinion has  failed to\tobserve the aforesaid principles and<br \/>\nin fact\t has mis-appreciated  the evidence  which has caused<br \/>\ngross miscarriage  of justice.\tCredibility of a witness has<br \/>\nto be  decided by  referring to his evidence and finding out<br \/>\nhow he has freed in cross-examination and what impression is<br \/>\ncreated by his evidence taken in one context of the case and<br \/>\nnot by entering into realm of conjecture and speculation. On<br \/>\nscruitinising the  evidence of\tPWs. 1, 2 and 3 we find they<br \/>\nare consistent\twith one  another so  far as  the  place  of<br \/>\noccurrence, the\t manner of  assault, the  weapon of  assault<br \/>\nused by\t the accused  persons, the  fact of  dragging of the<br \/>\ndead body  of the  deceased from  the place to the grove and<br \/>\nnothing has  been brought  out in their cross-examination to<br \/>\nimpeach their  testimony. The medical evidence. In that view<br \/>\nof the\tmatter we unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that<br \/>\nthe prosecution\t has  been  able  to  establish\t the  charge<br \/>\nagainst the  accused persons  and the  High Court  committed<br \/>\nerror in acquitting the three respondents namely Inder Dutt,<br \/>\nRaghu Raj and Bikram. In the aforesaid premises the order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed  by the  High Court  so far  as  respondent<br \/>\nNoori is  concerned is\tconfirmed but the order of acquittal<br \/>\nso far\tas accused  Inder  Dut,\t Raghu\tRaj  and  Bikram  is<br \/>\nconcerned is  set aside\t and their  conviction and sentences<br \/>\npassed\tby   the  learned   Additional\tSessions  Judge\t are<br \/>\nconfirmed. The\tappeal is allowed in part. Respondents Inder<br \/>\nDutt, Raghu  Raj and  Bikram are  directed to  surrender  to<br \/>\nserve the balance period of sentence. Their bail ponds stand<br \/>\ncancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (3), 570 1996 SCALE (3)85 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. NOORIE @ NOOR JAHAN &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-15T21:22:05+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\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T21:22:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2434,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T21:22:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-15T21:22:05+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\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996","datePublished":"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T21:22:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996"},"wordCount":2434,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996","name":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T21:22:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-vs-smt-noorie-noor-jahan-ors-on-26-march-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P vs Smt. Noorie @ Noor Jahan &amp; Ors on 26 March, 1996"}]},{"@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\/63938","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=63938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}