{"id":64116,"date":"2002-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002"},"modified":"2019-03-23T07:28:56","modified_gmt":"2019-03-23T01:58:56","slug":"kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 107-109  of  2002\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nKANWARLAL &amp; ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF M.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Shivaraj V. Patil J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellants and six other co-accused were tried<br \/>\nby Sessions Court for offences under Sections 148, 302,<br \/>\nin the alternative under Sections 302, 148, 307 or<br \/>\n307\/148, 323 or 323\/149 IPC and the appellant No. 1 was<br \/>\nalso charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.<br \/>\nAfter trial, death sentence was awarded to the<br \/>\nappellant no. 1 finding him guilty of various offences<br \/>\nand the remaining seven accused were sentenced to<br \/>\nimprisonment for life besides imposing fine and<br \/>\nimprisonment for other offences.  On appeal, by the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order, the High Court acquitted<br \/>\nthe other six co-accused; the appellants were held<br \/>\nguilty only under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to<br \/>\nimprisonment for life and death sentence passed against<br \/>\nthe appellant No. 1 was set aside.  Aggrieved by their<br \/>\nconviction and sentence passed by the High Court, the<br \/>\nappellants are before this Court in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn short and substance, the prosecution case was<br \/>\nthat on 31.5.1996 at about 7.30 A.M., deceased Dwarka<br \/>\naccompanied by Prakash, Jeevan and Shambhu was on his<br \/>\nway to Ramganj Mandi. When they were in the playground<br \/>\nof Higher Secondary School of village Sandhara, the<br \/>\naccused persons surrounded the deceased Dwarka and<br \/>\nstarted assaulting him by means of lathi, ballam, axe<br \/>\netc.  Shambhu (PW-12) came home and informed the family<br \/>\nmembers about the occurrence; thereupon deceased Bheru<br \/>\naccompanied by Kaniram, Nandlal, Jalam and Jaikishan<br \/>\nreached the spot and when they tried to save Dwarka,<br \/>\nthey were also assaulted by the accused.  Appellant No.<br \/>\n1 Kanwarlal allegedly fired gun shot at Bheru causing<br \/>\nhis instantaneous death.  Kaniram lodged First<br \/>\nInformation Report on the same day at 9.30 A.M. at P.S.<br \/>\nBhanpur., Dwarka and other injured persons were sent to<br \/>\nCivil Hospital, Bhanpura for treatment.\t Dwarka was<br \/>\nsent to Civil Hospital, Mandsaur as his condition was<br \/>\nserious but he died on the way.\t The police after<br \/>\ninvestigation filed the charge-sheet.  As already<br \/>\nnoticed above, the trial court after considering and<br \/>\nappreciating the evidence on record held that the<br \/>\nprosecution proved its case against all the eight<br \/>\naccused persons and consequently they were convicted<br \/>\nand sentenced.\tHowever, the High Court in appeal,<br \/>\nacquitted six other co-accused and convicted and<br \/>\nsentenced the appellants as already noticed above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the appellants urged that<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained for<br \/>\nthe reasons more than one.  There were inherent<br \/>\ncontradictions in medical evidence as recorded by Dr.<br \/>\nPramila Nahar (PW-18) and Dr. A.K. Gulati (PW-21); five<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses have given different versions and<br \/>\nmentioned different arms being used by the appellant<br \/>\nNo. 2; hence their evidence ought not to have been<br \/>\nbelieved; the  High Court having  held that Kaniram<br \/>\n(PW-1) and Jalam (PW-7) had no occasion to see as to<br \/>\nwho in fact caused injury to Dwarka and that there was<br \/>\nno corroboration to their testimony, committed an error<br \/>\nin holding appellant no. 2 guilty of offence under<br \/>\nSection 302; despite recording a finding that the<br \/>\naccused suffered injuries and it was some kind of free<br \/>\nfight between two parties and no role was assigned to a<br \/>\nparticular accused and having held that Section 149 IPC<br \/>\nwas not attracted, the High Court erred in holding<br \/>\nappellant No. 2 solely guilty for causing the death of<br \/>\nDwarka; since Dwarka died as a result of head injury,<br \/>\nthe High Court was not justified in convicting the<br \/>\nappellant no. 2 on the basis of evidence of PW-10 and<br \/>\nPW-12 inasmuch as PW-10 has stated in his deposition<br \/>\nthat the appellants were carrying rifles while PW-12<br \/>\nhas stated that Kanwarlal had pierced the shoulder of<br \/>\nDwarka with spear and Laxminarayan had fired at<br \/>\nKaniram.  The learned counsel also contended that the<br \/>\nHigh Court committed a manifest error in convicting the<br \/>\nappellant No. 2 on the basis of the evidence of<br \/>\nwitnesses having disbelieved their evidence with regard<br \/>\nto the incident in which Dwarka was killed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel representing the State made<br \/>\nsubmissions in support of the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder.\tAccording to her, the evidence against the<br \/>\nappellant no. 1 is consistent as to firing gun shot at<br \/>\nBheru causing his instantaneous death; the<br \/>\ncontradictions pointed out on behalf of the appellants<br \/>\nin the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not<br \/>\nmaterial.  According to the learned counsel, taking an<br \/>\noverall view looking to the material placed on record,<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and order is quite justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have carefully considered the respective<br \/>\nsubmissions of the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs can be seen from the impugned judgment, the<br \/>\nHigh Court noticed that there was some discrepancy in<br \/>\nthe medical evidence but without examining further, the<br \/>\nHigh Court held that the deceased Dwarka had only one<br \/>\nhead injury and in fact no fire arm injury was suffered<br \/>\nby Dwarka; the incident had taken place in two parts;<br \/>\nin the earlier part, Dwarka was assaulted, in the later<br \/>\npart, Bheru was killed; the High court disbelieved the<br \/>\nstatements of PWs 1, 6 and 7 as to the assault on<br \/>\nDwarka but on the basis of evidence of PWs 10 and 12<br \/>\nfound the appellant No.1 guilty having held that there<br \/>\nwas an attempt on the part of these witnesses to<br \/>\nimplicate majority of the accused falsely;  these two<br \/>\nwitnesses testified that the appellant No. 2 and other<br \/>\naccused assaulted the deceased Dwarka by means of<br \/>\nlathis, farsis and ballams and PW-12 further stated<br \/>\nthat the appellant no. 2 gave lathi blows to the<br \/>\ndeceased.  However, the medical evidence revealed that<br \/>\ndeceased Dwarka had no injury caused by cutting or<br \/>\npointed weapons like farsis and ballams.  It may also<br \/>\nbe added that PW-12 was declared hostile in the trial<br \/>\ncourt. The High Court has observed that the prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses seem to resort to exaggeration, embellishment<br \/>\nand padding up to support the story; the truth and<br \/>\nfalsehood were so mixed up inextricably that it was not<br \/>\npossible to disengage the truth from falsehood.\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court with these observations and findings<br \/>\nacquitted the other six co-accused but on the basis of<br \/>\nthe same evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded<br \/>\nconviction on the appellants.  In para 13 of the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment, the High Court has observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;According to the learned trial judge, this<br \/>\naccused Kanwarlal acted in a filmy style<br \/>\nfiring repeated shots at the complainant<br \/>\nparty.\tIn fact that part of prosecution<br \/>\nstory appeared to be wholly unbelievable.<br \/>\nKanwarlal, it appears, only fired once at the<br \/>\ndeceased.  His was a country made gun used<br \/>\nwith the help of gun powder and for every<br \/>\nfire he was required to load the gun afresh.<br \/>\nThere was no occasion for using the gun in<br \/>\nthat manner.  His was an act of plain<br \/>\nshooting causing death of Bheru without there<br \/>\nbeing any element of brutality in it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court has also noticed that PWs 1, 7 and<br \/>\n16 also received injuries in the incident.  However,<br \/>\nthere was no specific evidence as to which of the<br \/>\naccused caused these injuries; it is admitted by the<br \/>\nwitnesses that the stones were pelted from both the<br \/>\nsides and injuries to these persons were caused by<br \/>\npelting of stones; it appears that there was some kind<br \/>\nof free fight on the spot between the two parties; so<br \/>\nunless it was shown that a particular accused caused<br \/>\nthese injuries, no one can be held responsible by<br \/>\ntaking recourse to Section 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant no. 2 was held guilty principally on<br \/>\nthe basis of the evidence of PWs 10 and 12 who deposed<br \/>\nthat deceased Dwarka was assaulted by farsis and<br \/>\nballams.  However, medical evidence shows no cut or<br \/>\npointed injuries.  PW-1 denied even lodging of F.I.R.<br \/>\nPWs 1, 6 and 7 stated to have reached the spot on<br \/>\nhearing about the assault on Dwarka.  It was held by<br \/>\nthe High Court that their evidence as to the assault of<br \/>\nDwarka could not be believed.  They stated that Dwarka<br \/>\nwas assaulted by the appellant No. 2 by means of farsi<br \/>\nbut no cut injury was found on Dwarka as per medical<br \/>\nevidence.  As per the prosecution witnesses, several<br \/>\naccused assaulted Dwarka but there was only one injury<br \/>\non his head.  In the absence of any corroboration, the<br \/>\nprosecution case could not be believed to hold that the<br \/>\nappellant No. 2 was guilty for an offence under Section<br \/>\n302 IPC.  Further, there are material contradictions in<br \/>\nthe evidence of these so-called eye-witnesses rendering<br \/>\nthe prosecution case doubtful and improbable in order<br \/>\nto fix appellant No. 2 guilty for the offence under<br \/>\nSection 302 IPC in relation to deceased Dwarka.\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court having stated that there was an attempt on<br \/>\nthe part of the PWs 10 and 12 to implicate majority of<br \/>\nthe accused; that evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 7 did not<br \/>\ninspire confidence; that there appeared to be a free<br \/>\nfight between parties and it was not shown that a<br \/>\nparticular accused caused the injuries to have recourse<br \/>\nto Section 149 IPC.  In these circumstances, the<br \/>\nimpugned order convicting and sentencing the appellant<br \/>\nNo. 2 cannot be sustained as the High Court did not<br \/>\nanalyze and appreciate evidence objectively as it ought<br \/>\nto be by the court of first appeal.  The serious<br \/>\ninfirmities and contradictions found in the prosecution<br \/>\ncase were not duly considered.\tConsequently, the<br \/>\nfinding recorded by the High Court affirming the<br \/>\nfinding recorded by the trial court, in our view, is<br \/>\nunsustainable having regard to the state of affairs<br \/>\nfound in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAlthough there were serious contradictions in the<br \/>\nevidence of the so-called eye-witnesses PWs 1, 6 and 7<br \/>\nin regard to the assault on deceased Bheru, one thing<br \/>\nappears to be probable that appellant no. 1 fired a gun<br \/>\nshot on deceased Bheru causing his instantaneous death.<br \/>\nIt is on record, as found by the High Court on the<br \/>\nbasis of evidence that there was a free fight between<br \/>\ntwo parties for quite sometime and in that fight<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses also received injuries.  No<br \/>\noffence was made out in convicting the appellants<br \/>\neither under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC by the High<br \/>\nCourt.\tUnder the circumstances, it appears that the<br \/>\nappellant No. 1 fired a gun shot in a free fight<br \/>\nsuddenly under grave provocation when there was free<br \/>\nfight between the parties for quite some time.\tIn this<br \/>\nsituation, considering the facts and circumstances, we<br \/>\nhold the appellant No. 1 guilty under Section 304(II)<br \/>\nIPC instead of Section 302 IPC.\t We are informed that<br \/>\nhe is in custody for over six years i.e. from 4.6.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the light of what is stated above, we acquit<br \/>\nthe appellant No. 2 and convict the appellant No. 1 for<br \/>\nan offence under Section 304(II) IPC instead of under<br \/>\nSection 302 IPC and sentence him to imprisonment for<br \/>\nthe period already undergone.  The appellants shall be<br \/>\nreleased forthwith if they are not required in any<br \/>\nother case.  The appeals are ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 Author: S V Patil Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 107-109 of 2002 PETITIONER: KANWARLAL &amp; ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/09\/2002 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. JUDGMENT: Shivaraj V. [&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-64116","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>Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - 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\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-23T01:58:56+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T01:58:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"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\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-23T01:58:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - 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\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-23T01:58:56+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T01:58:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002"},"wordCount":1788,"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\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002","name":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-23T01:58:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanwarlal-another-vs-state-of-m-p-on-10-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanwarlal &amp; Another vs State Of M.P on 10 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/64116","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=64116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}