{"id":6904,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-24T06:47:35","modified_gmt":"2016-02-24T01:17:35","slug":"bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR          \n\n Criminal Appeal No  522 of 2000\n\n Bhagirathi Sahu\n                                               ...Petitioners\n\n                         Versus\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh  \n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n! Shri Sudeep Agrawal counsel for the appellant\n\n^ Shri Sameer Behar Panel Lawyer for the State\n\n CORAM: Honble Mr Ranganath Chandrakar J    \n\n Dated: 07\/08\/2009\n\n: Judgement \n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         Delivered on this 7th  day of August 2009<\/p>\n
           Criminal  appeal  uS 374 2 of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure Code  <\/p>\n
     The  appellant has preferred this appeal  against  the<\/p>\n
judgment  of conviction and order of sentence  dated   4-2-<\/p>\n
2000   passed  by the learned Special Court,  Raigarh,   in<\/p>\n
Special Case  No. 48 of 1998, whereby the accused\/appellant<\/p>\n
has  been  convicted   under  Section  3  (1)  (x)  of  the<\/p>\n
Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention   of<\/p>\n
Atrocities)  Act,  1989 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the<\/p>\n
`Act’)  &   under Section 506 (2) of the IPC  and sentenced<\/p>\n
to  undergo  R.I. for six months on each count.   Both  the<\/p>\n
sentences are directed to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
2)   The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20-2-<\/p>\n
1998  when  the  complainant was teaching the  students  in<\/p>\n
primary  school at village Laat,  at about 11.45 a.m.,  the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant forcibly entered into the class room  and<\/p>\n
abused  the complainant by caste.  On this, the complainant<\/p>\n
asked the accused\/appellant to go away from the school, but<\/p>\n
he  did not heed his words and sat there on a chair.    The<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant  also threatened the complainant  stating<\/p>\n
that  he  would  be killed on the way to  his  house.   The<\/p>\n
reason behind the incident was stated to be the interchange<\/p>\n
of  plates  (Thali) brought for mid-day meals  between  the<\/p>\n
students due to which the teaching work was affected.   The<\/p>\n
complainant  lodged a written complaint (Ex.P\/1)   relating<\/p>\n
to  the incident at  Police Station, Chhal, on the basis of<\/p>\n
which  the  FIR  (Ex.P\/2) was registered,  the  matter  was<\/p>\n
investigated and the accused\/appellant was arrested on 28-9-<\/p>\n
1998.\n<\/p>\n
(3)   After  completion of investigation, charge sheet  was<\/p>\n
filed  in  the  Special  Court.  The Special  Judge  framed<\/p>\n
charges  punishable under Section 294 & 506 (2) of IPC  and<\/p>\n
under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. The accused  abjured  the<\/p>\n
guilt  and  pleaded  his  innocence and false  implication.<\/p>\n
The  learned  Special Judge after due trial  convicted  and<\/p>\n
sentenced the accused\/appellant  as mentioned in para 1  of<\/p>\n
the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   Learned  counsel appearing for the appellant  submits<\/p>\n
that the learned trial Court has erred in appreciating  the<\/p>\n
evidence  in  its proper legal perspective. The  conviction<\/p>\n
recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Special  Judge <\/p>\n
are  contrary  to the facts  available  on  record.     The<\/p>\n
prosecution  has miserably failed to prove the  ingredients<\/p>\n
of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and 506 (2)<\/p>\n
of  the  IPC.    Thus, the appellant is  entitled  for  the<\/p>\n
benefit  of  doubt.   There is no  material  on  record  to<\/p>\n
establish  that the appellant did the act with  a  view  to<\/p>\n
humiliate the complainant.  There is no iota of evidence in<\/p>\n
the  record.   Learned counsel  further  submits  that  the<\/p>\n
statements  of  PW\/2 Sahebram and PW\/3  Ramkumar  and  PW\/4      <\/p>\n
Tejram  Rathia are not reliable and inspire no  confidence.<\/p>\n
PW\/6 Laxminarayan, who is eye-witness to the incident   has<\/p>\n
not  supported the prosecution story and has been  declared<\/p>\n
hostile   which  makes  the  prosecution  case  suspicious.<\/p>\n
Learned  counsel   further submits   that  the  conclusions<\/p>\n
arrived  at   by  the trial Court are based on presumptions<\/p>\n
and  surmises  and on the grounds mentioned above,  amongst  <\/p>\n
others, the impugned conviction and sentence passed against <\/p>\n
the appellant is bad in law and the same  deserve to be set<\/p>\n
aside and  the appellant  be acquitted of the charges.<\/p>\n
6)     Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/State argued the case in support of the impugned<\/p>\n
order of the lower court.\n<\/p>\n
7)    Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I  have<\/p>\n
perused  the  records of the special  Court  and  also  the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment .\n<\/p>\n
8)    The  prosecution in order to prove the guilt  against<\/p>\n
the accused\/appellant, examined as many as six witnesses. <\/p>\n
9)    PW\/2  Saheblal,  the complainant has  stated  in  his<\/p>\n
deposition that during  mid-day meals there was interchange<\/p>\n
of plates between the students by mistake, due to which the<\/p>\n
students  were  quarrelling each other.    The  matter  was<\/p>\n
intervened  by  Saheblal saying that the  plates  would  be<\/p>\n
searched  after  the  meal.  Thereafter,  the  son  of  the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant went to his house and after some time  he<\/p>\n
came  along with  the daughter-in-law of the accused.   She<\/p>\n
started  murmuring  that how the plate  of  her  child  was<\/p>\n
misplaced.  She also threatened the witness to see and took<\/p>\n
away  three  plates saying that she would  not  return  the<\/p>\n
plates till the plate of her child was given.  He tried  to<\/p>\n
convince  her  to  settle the matter.  He  assured  her  to<\/p>\n
search  out  the plate of her child and simply  pushed  the<\/p>\n
plate  kept  in the verandah.  On this, she became  furious<\/p>\n
and  went  away.     Thereafter, the witness  went  to  his<\/p>\n
class room.  When he was teaching the students in Class Vth <\/p>\n
,  the  accused\/appellant came there and forcibly   entered<\/p>\n
into  the class room, abused him and said  that how did  he<\/p>\n
dare  to  abuse his daughter-in-law.  On this,  he  replied<\/p>\n
that  he  had not said anything to his daughter-in-law  and<\/p>\n
asked the accused\/appellant to sit for half an hour and  he<\/p>\n
would  make  him  understand the whole  story.   The  other<\/p>\n
teachers  also forbade the accused\/appellant to enter  into<\/p>\n
the  school.   The accused\/appellant did not go  away  from<\/p>\n
the school, despite the request of the teachers and  abused<\/p>\n
Saheblal  by  caste saying “Tum mujhe nikalnewale  `Chamar’ <\/p>\n
kahin  ke  hote kaun ho”.  The accused also threatened  him<\/p>\n
to  kill,  if  he  passes in front  of  the  house  of  the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant.  The  incident  also   interrupted   the<\/p>\n
teaching  work of the school.  The matter was also reported<\/p>\n
to  the  Sub Divisional Magistrate, who asked him to  lodge<\/p>\n
the  report  in Police Station.  Thereafter, he lodged  the<\/p>\n
written  report  (Ex.P\/1) at Police Station  Chhal  on  the<\/p>\n
basis   of  which  FIR  (Ex.P\/2)  was  registered.   During<\/p>\n
investigation,  he  produced his  caste  certificate.   The<\/p>\n
statement  of  this witness has also been  corroborated  by<\/p>\n
PW\/3  Ramkumar, PW\/4 Tejram Rathia who are the  eye-witness    <\/p>\n
to the incident.\n<\/p>\n
10)    This  witness  was  cross examined  at  length,  but<\/p>\n
nothing appeared in his cross examination due to which  the<\/p>\n
testimony  of  this witness can be held unreliable.  Though<\/p>\n
some contradictions and omissions appeared in the statement <\/p>\n
of  this  witness made before the court  and    before  the<\/p>\n
Police   in  view  of   the written report  (Ex.P\/1),   his<\/p>\n
statement remained unrebutted on material points.<\/p>\n
11)  PW\/1 – B.P. Singsaria, Sub Inspector has supported the<\/p>\n
testimony  of the complainant (PW\/2) and admitted  that  on<\/p>\n
the basis of written report (Ex.P\/1) of the complainant, he<\/p>\n
registered the FIR (Ex.P\/2).\n<\/p>\n
12)  PW\/5 – A. Sai Manohar, the S.D.O.(P) deposed that   he<\/p>\n
received  the  case  diary  of  Crime  No.  33  of  98  for<\/p>\n
investigation.   He  recorded  the statement  of  witnesses<\/p>\n
Saheblal  (PW\/2), PW\/3) Ramkumar, PW\/4  Tejram   and   PW\/6    <\/p>\n
Laxmi Narayan and other witnesses, thereafter, arrested the<\/p>\n
accused.   He admitted his signatures on the statements  of<\/p>\n
the  witnesses and  arrest memo (Ex.P\/4).  He also admitted<\/p>\n
that  during  investigation, caste certificate (Ex.P\/6)  of<\/p>\n
the  complainant  (PW\/2)  was  obtained.   Thereafter,  the<\/p>\n
charge  sheet was filed by him in the competent court.   In<\/p>\n
cross  examination  of this witness, nothing  appeared   to<\/p>\n
disbelieve the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
13)   Although PW\/6 – Laxmi Narayan  declared  hostile  and<\/p>\n
did not support the prosecution story, he admitted the fact<\/p>\n
that  on  the date of incident some altercation took  place<\/p>\n
between   the  daughter-in-law  of  the  accused  and   the<\/p>\n
complainant (PW\/2), thereafter, the accused\/appellant  also<\/p>\n
came  there.   On  bare perusal of the  testimony  of  this<\/p>\n
witness,    it  is  crystal  clear  that  on  the  date  of<\/p>\n
incident  the  accused  came to  the  school  and  forcibly<\/p>\n
entered  into  the  class room where  the  complainant  was<\/p>\n
teaching the students and from this  the prosecution  story<\/p>\n
finds corroborated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14)   Hon’ble  the  Supreme Court in the matter  of  Swarna<\/p>\n
Singh  and  others vs. State through Standing  counsel  and<\/p>\n
another,  reported  in  (2008) 8 SCC 435  has  observed  as<\/p>\n
under”.\n<\/p>\n
             24.  In  our opinion, calling a  member
\n             of  the  Scheduled Caste “chamar”  with
\n             intent to insult or humiliate him in  a
\n             place  within public view is  certainly
\n             an  offence  under Section  3(1)(x)  of
\n             the  Act.  Whether there was intent  to
\n             insult  or humiliate by using the  word
\n             “chamar” will of course depend  on  the
\n             context in which it was used.\n<\/p>\n
             30.  In  this  connection  it  may   be
\n             mentioned  that in America to  use  the
\n             word  “nigger”  today for  an  African-\n<\/p>\n
             American   is   regarded   as    highly
\n             offensive  and is totally unacceptable,
\n             even  if  it  was acceptable  50  years
\n             ago.  In our opinion, even if the  word
\n             “chamar” was not regarded offensive  at
\n             one  time in our country, today  it  is
\n             certainly a highly offensive word  when
\n             used  in  a derogatory sense to  insult
\n             and  humiliate  a  person.  Hence,   it
\n             should  never be used with that intent.<\/p>\n
             The  use  of  the  word  “chamar”  will
\n             certainly  attract Section  3(1)(x)  of
\n             the   Act,  if  from  the  context   it
\n             appears   that  it  was   used   in   a
\n             derogatory   sense   to    insult    or
\n             humiliate a member of SC\/ST”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15)          So  far  as this case is concerned,  there  is<\/p>\n
consistent evidence on record regarding intentional, insult<\/p>\n
or  intimidation  with  intent to  humiliate  a  member  of<\/p>\n
Scheduled  caste.   Calling  a  person  by  the  caste-name<\/p>\n
“Chamar” (as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment) with<\/p>\n
intention of insulting or intimidating or humiliating  will<\/p>\n
also   constitute the offence rendered under  the  section.<\/p>\n
More  so,  these  witnesses  have  also  corroborated   the<\/p>\n
statement  of  the complainant (PW\/1) and  they  have  been<\/p>\n
remained  unrebutted on material point.  PW\/3 Ramkumar  and  <\/p>\n
PW\/4 Tejram Rathia, the teachers of the school have clearly<\/p>\n
stated  that   the complainant was abused   by  caste  name<\/p>\n
“Chamar” and threatened to kill by the accused\/appellant in<\/p>\n
the   school   which  is  a  public  place.   Thus,   after<\/p>\n
appreciating the evidence on record, it is clear  that  the<\/p>\n
case  is well made out against the accused\/appellant. There<\/p>\n
is  consistent  evidence against him about the  intentional<\/p>\n
insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of<\/p>\n
Scheduled caste in a public place.\n<\/p>\n
16)            Having   considered  all   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case and in the light of principles of<\/p>\n
law  laid  down  in  Swarna Singh (supra),   I  am  of  the<\/p>\n
considered  opinion  that  the Special  Court  has  rightly<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the accused\/appellant under Section <\/p>\n
506(2)   and   Section  3  (1)  (x)  of  the  Act  and   no<\/p>\n
interference  is called for by this court  in the  impugned<\/p>\n
judgment of the Special Court.\n<\/p>\n
17)     For the foregoing, the appeal deserves to be and is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No 522 of 2000 Bhagirathi Sahu …Petitioners Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! Shri Sudeep Agrawal counsel for the appellant ^ Shri Sameer Behar Panel Lawyer […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-24T01:17:35+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\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T01:17:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1725,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-24T01:17:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-24T01:17:35+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\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T01:17:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":1725,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009","name":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-24T01:17:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagirathi-sahu-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-now-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagirathi Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Now … on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/6904","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=6904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}