{"id":65746,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-13T17:10:01","modified_gmt":"2018-05-13T11:40:01","slug":"dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n                       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                         PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                                    DIVISION BENCH\n\n                           Criminal Appeal No. 910\/2002\n\n                        Dhan Singh, s\/o Kodar Singh, aged\n                        about      35     years,      Occupation\n                        Agriculturist, r\/o village-Tikariya, P.S.\n                        Jawar, Distt. Sehore (M.P.).\n\n                                            Versus\n\n                        The State of M.P. through Police Station\n                        Jawar, District Sehore, (M.P.).\n\n\nFor the Appellant:              Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate\n                                with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n\nFor the Respondent:             Shri S.K. Rai, Government Advocate.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPRESENT:\nHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA\nHONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SINHO\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing:                 30\/03\/2010\nDate of Judgment:                05\/04\/2010\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.\n<\/p>\n
        Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 11th April<\/p>\n
2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta, district Sehore, in Sessions<\/p>\n
Trial No.165\/2000, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000\/-, in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year.<\/p>\n
2.      In Short, the prosecution case is that since last two years before the<\/p>\n
date of occurrence, which occurred on 26.7.2000, a dispute between accused<\/p>\n
Dhan Singh on one side and Gangaram (deceased) on the other side was going<\/p>\n
on in respect of passage to field. Litigation in respect of the same was also<\/p>\n
pending in the Court. It is alleged that at about 2.00 O’clock in the night when
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
Gangaram, his wife Imrat Bai and other family members, Tej Singh, Surendra<\/p>\n
and Ram Singh were sleeping in the outer courtyard of their house, suddenly<\/p>\n
they heard Gangaram shouting; Imrat Bai, her son and Tej Singh immediately<\/p>\n
got up and in the light of electric bulb saw accused Dhan Singh standing near<\/p>\n
the head of Gangaram wielding an axe. Dhan Singh had already inflicted a<\/p>\n
blow with the axe to Gangaram. When he raised the axe again, Imrat Bai and<\/p>\n
Tej Singh caught hold of him. Dhan Singh tried to run away by pushing them,<\/p>\n
but Munnalal and Kodar Singh (acquitted accused person) came for his help.<\/p>\n
Dhan Singh then ran away with the axe. There was an injury on the head of<\/p>\n
Gangaram, which was bleeding profusely. Hearing the hue and cry, Vikram,<\/p>\n
Ramlal and some other persons reached at the spot. Imrat Bai informed them<\/p>\n
about the occurrence. When Gangaram was being taken to police station in a<\/p>\n
tractor, he became unconscious. Imrat Bai lodged the report of the incident<\/p>\n
(Ex.P\/2) at Police Station, Jawar, at about 4.15 a.m.. Police registered a case<\/p>\n
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Gangaram was sent for medical<\/p>\n
examination and treatment to Government Hospital, Ashta.<\/p>\n
3.    Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW-10) examined Gangaram at about 6.15 a.m. and<\/p>\n
found him dead. Police recorded the intimation about his death (Ex.P\/22) in<\/p>\n
Ashta Hospital and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. On the<\/p>\n
same day, Dr. K.K. Chaturvedi (PW-9) conducted postmortem examination of<\/p>\n
the body of Gangaram and found an incised wound 7 cm x 2cm x10 cm on his<\/p>\n
parietal-temporal bone. As a result of this injury, both the skull bones and the<\/p>\n
brain matter of deceased had been cut.\n<\/p>\n
4.    After receiving the Murg intimation (Ex.P\/22) police converted the<\/p>\n
offence from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 302 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
5.    After the inquest and further investigation, charge sheet was filed
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
against the appellant and co-accused Amar Singh and Kodar Singh.<\/p>\n
6.     All the three accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication.   According to them, they were falsely implicated in the case<\/p>\n
because of past enmity.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of<\/p>\n
the evidence adduced in the case, held the appellant guilty and convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced him as mentioned above. However, finding the evidence insufficient<\/p>\n
against co-accused Amar Singh and Kodar Singh acquitted them.<\/p>\n
8.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
evidence and the material on record. It was no longer disputed that deceased<\/p>\n
Gangaram died of injury received by him on his head. It is also reflected from<\/p>\n
the evidence of Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW-10) that Gangaram was brought to him by<\/p>\n
Police, Ashta, on 27.6.2000. He had examined him and found him dead. He<\/p>\n
had given his report (Ex.P\/10). Dr. K.K. Chaturvedi (PW-9) performed the<\/p>\n
postmortem examination of the body of Gangaram and found an incised<\/p>\n
wound on his left parieto temporal region of skull obliquely downward and<\/p>\n
backward.      Margins of the injury were clearcut; size of the wound was<\/p>\n
7cmx2cmx10cm. Through the wound brain matter was visible with cutting of<\/p>\n
the tissue and bone. Injury was antemortem in nature. In his opinion, the<\/p>\n
cause of death was coma as a result of injury to vital organ brain within 24<\/p>\n
hours from the commencement of the postmortem examination. Postmortem<\/p>\n
examination report is Ex.P\/9. From the first information report (Ex.P\/2) and the<\/p>\n
Murg intimation (Ex.P\/22), it was clearly evident that deceased Gangaram died<\/p>\n
of the incised injury inflicted on his head.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the trial<\/p>\n
Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of eyewitnesses<\/p>\n
viz. Imrat bai (PW-2), Tej Singh (PW-3), Surendra (PW-4) and Ram Singh
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
(PW-5). According to him, it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen<\/p>\n
the actual assault by the accused on the head of deceased. Appellant was<\/p>\n
falsely implicated due to past enmity.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and<\/p>\n
supported conviction of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
11.   We have gone through the entire evidence on record. Imrat Bai (PW-2)<\/p>\n
deposed that she knew the appellant. There had been some dispute about a<\/p>\n
passage between them on one side and accused Dhan Singh on the other side.<\/p>\n
The dispute was continuing since last one and a half years. In the night of<\/p>\n
incident, they were sleeping in the courtyard of their house.     Suddenly, at<\/p>\n
about 2.00 O’clock in the night, Dhan Singh came there and inflicted an axe<\/p>\n
blow to Gangaram. Other two accused persons were also standing near him.<\/p>\n
Gangaram shouted, hearing which, she and Gangaram’s younger brother Tej<\/p>\n
Singh got up and saw Dhan Singh there. When Dhan Singh again tried to lift<\/p>\n
his axe for assaulting Gangaram, she and Tej Singh caught him, but Munna<\/p>\n
and Kodar rescued him. Gangaram had sustained one injury on his head, out<\/p>\n
of which blood was oozing out. Hearing the noise, her son Ram Singh and<\/p>\n
Surendra Singh also got up.      Some persons from the neighbourhood also<\/p>\n
reached there. She categorically deposed that all the members of her family<\/p>\n
were sleeping in the courtyard near the deceased. She then went to lodge the<\/p>\n
report with Tej Singh, Ram Singh Sarpanch and Vikram Singh Patel. While<\/p>\n
Gangarm was being taken to hospital, he breathed his last. According to her,<\/p>\n
she lodged the first information report (Ex.P\/2). Despite a lengthy and probing<\/p>\n
cross-examination, this witness stood firm. She deposed that the house of her<\/p>\n
husband’s brother Tej Singh was situated in the neighbourhood and the<\/p>\n
courtyard in which they were sleeping lay interjacent between the two houses.<\/p>\n
12.   Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Imrat Bai disowned that
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
she mentioned about the light in the first information report (Ex.P\/2), but on<\/p>\n
perusal of the first information report, it is apparent that the presence of<\/p>\n
electric bulb was clearly mentioned. Though there were some contradictions in<\/p>\n
the statement of this witness, but they were not of the nature substantially<\/p>\n
affecting the credibility of her evidence. On the contrary, the Statement of this<\/p>\n
witness stands corroborated by the first information report (Ex.P\/2) lodged by<\/p>\n
her at about 4.15 a.m. in which the name of appellant was clearly mentioned.<\/p>\n
Apart from that, her evidence finds further support from the evidence of Tej<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-3), Surendra (PW-4) and Ram Singh (PW-5). The evidence of these<\/p>\n
witnesses, who happened to be the family members of the deceased, cannot<\/p>\n
be discarded merely on the ground that they are close relatives of the<\/p>\n
deceased. However, it requires a closer scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Tej Singh (PW-3), younger brother of deceased, Surendra (PW-4) and<\/p>\n
Ram Singh (PW-5), both sons of deceased, categorically stated that they were<\/p>\n
asleep on different cots in the courtyard of their house. On hearing the scream<\/p>\n
of Gangaram, they got up and saw appellant Dhan Singh standing near the<\/p>\n
head of Gangaram weilding an axe. Tej Singh and Imrat Bai caught hold of<\/p>\n
Dhan Singh, but Kodar Singh and Munna got him released and all of them ran<\/p>\n
away. On their shouting, Umrao, Chander and Vikram Singh came at the spot,<\/p>\n
to whom they narrated the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Umrao (PW-6) and Chander Singh (PW-7) though admitted that on<\/p>\n
hearing hue and cry from the house of Gangaram they reached to his house<\/p>\n
and found Gangaram injured, but they did not tell that the incident was<\/p>\n
narrated to them by anybody. They were declared hostile. However, Vikram<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-12) deposed that when he reached at the spot in the night, wife of<\/p>\n
Gangaram told him that Dhan Singh assaulted Gangaram with an axe and that<\/p>\n
she asked him to bring a tractor. He then brought a tractor from his Khalihan
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
and took Gangaram and his wife to police station and the hospital. Since this<\/p>\n
witness did not name the other accused person, he was declared hostile.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in his police statement (Ex.P\/17)<\/p>\n
Vikram Singh did not say that he asked Imrat Bai as to who assaulted<\/p>\n
Gangaram and she disclosed that Dhan Singh assaulted Gangaram and that he<\/p>\n
should bring a tractor. However, on perusal of Ex.P\/17, it is found mentioned<\/p>\n
that Imrat Bai told to Vikram Singh that Dhan Singh had inflicted axe blow to<\/p>\n
Gangaram. Thus, the contradiction, as pointed out by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, does not appear to be material.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that it was not<\/p>\n
possible for the deceased to have shouted after receiving the injury on his<\/p>\n
head and that it was also not possible for the witnesses to have got up<\/p>\n
immediately at the time when the assault was made. It is true that the injury<\/p>\n
found on the head of Gangaram was serious in nature as it had injured the<\/p>\n
brain also, but in view of the categoric evidence of eyewitnesses, it cannot be<\/p>\n
held that deceased could not have cried even once. Since the wife, the brother<\/p>\n
and the sons of deceased were sleeping very close to the cot of deceased in a<\/p>\n
courtyard, it was also possible that the witnesses might have woke up by the<\/p>\n
sound of impact of the axe on the head of Gangaram.\n<\/p>\n
16.   We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of eyewitnesses viz. Imrat<\/p>\n
Bai (PW-2), Tej Singh (PW-3), Surendra (PW-4) and Ram Singh (PW-5). Their<\/p>\n
evidence stands corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K.K. Chaturvedi (PW-9),<\/p>\n
who found one incised injury on the head of deceased. On going through the<\/p>\n
same, we find no intrinsic inconsistency and contradiction between them so far<\/p>\n
as the basic prosecution case is concerned. It is apparent that all the aforesaid<\/p>\n
witnesses were sleeping in the courtyard in the night. So called minor<\/p>\n
inconsistencies in the evidence of the said eyewitnesses, pointed out by the
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, do not detract the intrinsic<\/p>\n
worth of the evidence of witnesses so as to dub them as unreliable. We do not<\/p>\n
find anything in their evidence as to discard them from consideration.     In our<\/p>\n
considered opinion, trial Court rightly relied upon the evidence of eyewitnesses<\/p>\n
in holding the appellant guilty of causing death of the deceased.<\/p>\n
17.   The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant had been<\/p>\n
that since only single blow of axe was inflicted by the appellant, his conviction<\/p>\n
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified. At the most, it<\/p>\n
could be a case under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. He placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Shivappa Buddappa Kolkar v. State of Karnataka & Ors-<\/a>(2004)<\/p>\n
13 SCC 168 .\n<\/p>\n
18.   In above cited case, a sudden quarrel had erupted when accused tried<\/p>\n
to take his bullock cart through the field of the deceased. In the course of<\/p>\n
quarrel, accused suddenly took the axe kept in the cart and hit the deceased<\/p>\n
on his occipital region, which resulted in depressed fracture of the skull bone<\/p>\n
and ultimate death of the deceased. In these circumstances, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
held that by inflicting a single blow on the head with the axe on the spur of the<\/p>\n
moment causing depressed fracture on the skull bone of the deceased it could<\/p>\n
not be gathered that the accused had intention to cause death of the deceased<\/p>\n
particularly when injury inflicted was not shown to be sufficient in ordinary<\/p>\n
course of nature to cause death and the accused was liable to be convicted<\/p>\n
under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. The above proposition is not<\/p>\n
attracted in the present case because the appellant had inflicted a blow with an<\/p>\n
axe on the head of deceased while he was lying asleep and the injury was<\/p>\n
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In State of Rajasthan<\/p>\n
v. Dhool Singh-AIR<\/a> 2004 SC 1264 the Apex Court held that the number of<\/p>\n
injuries is not always determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
         nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in<\/p>\n
         causing such injury, which are the indicators of the fact whether the accused<\/p>\n
         caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not.<\/p>\n
         19.   After bestowing our anxious consideration to the submissions made by<\/p>\n
         the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, we<\/p>\n
         find that the trial Court rightly found the appellant guilty of an offence<\/p>\n
         punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.        Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
         impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is<\/p>\n
         affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
         20.   Appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          (RAKESH SAKSENA)                                          (S.C. SINHO)\n               JUDGE                                                    JUDGE\n\n\n\n\nshukla\n                                     9<\/span>\n\n                 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n                   PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n\n                  Criminal Appeal No. 910\/2002\n\n                              Dhan Singh\n\n                                  Versus\n\n                       The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n\n\n                                           For consideration\n\n\n\n                                           (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                                  JUDGE\n                                                __\/04\/2010\n\n\n\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice S.C. Sinho\n\n\n\n          JUDGE\n        __\/04\/2010\n\n\n\n                                           POST FOR    \/04\/2010\n\n\n\n\n                                              (Rakesh Saksena)\n                                                   Judge\n                                                ___\/04\/2010\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH Criminal Appeal No. 910\/2002 Dhan Singh, s\/o Kodar Singh, aged about 35 years, Occupation Agriculturist, r\/o village-Tikariya, P.S. Jawar, Distt. Sehore (M.P.). Versus The State of M.P. through […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - 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\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-13T11:40:01+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\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-13T11:40:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2254,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-13T11:40:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - 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\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-13T11:40:01+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\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-13T11:40:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010"},"wordCount":2254,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010","name":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-13T11:40:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dhan-singh-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dhan Singh vs The State Of M.P on 5 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/65746","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=65746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}