{"id":72330,"date":"1995-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995"},"modified":"2018-10-31T02:07:29","modified_gmt":"2018-10-30T20:37:29","slug":"gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","title":{"rendered":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.N. Ray, Faizan Uddin<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  140-140A of 1984\n\nPETITIONER:\nGULAB CHAND\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY &amp; FAIZAN UDDIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1995 (3) SCR 27<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dated 29th November, 1985 in Criminal<br \/>\nAppeals 326 and 327 of 1980. Criminal Appeal No. 326\/80 was preferred by<br \/>\nthe State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Gulab Chand and 7 other<br \/>\naccused. Criminal Appeal No. 327\/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh against Gulab Chand and Durga. It may be stated that both the<br \/>\nappeals were preferred against the Judgment dated 7th December, 1979 passed<br \/>\nby the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 147\/79. In<br \/>\nthe said Sessions Trial, Gulab Chand was accused No. 1 and Durga was<br \/>\naccused No. 3. Gulab Chand, Durga and other six persons stood charged under<br \/>\nSection 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal<br \/>\nconspiracy in order to commit murder of Kapuriyabai and robbery of her<br \/>\nornaments on or about 23rd April, 1979 in the village Bhakarwara. The<br \/>\naccused Gulab Chand, Durga and Parsoo were charged under Section 302, 394<br \/>\nand 397 of Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Kapuriyabai<br \/>\nin committing the robbery on the intervening night between 23-24 April,<br \/>\n1979. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted all the aforesaid<br \/>\npersons under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Gulab<br \/>\nChand and Parsoo were also acquitted of the offences punishable under<br \/>\nSection 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code. But the trial court<br \/>\nconvicted Gulab Chand and Durga for the offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n380 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment for 3 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>As aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred the aforesaid appeals<br \/>\nbefore the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh High Court allowed both the said appeals in part and<br \/>\nconvicted the accused Gulab Chand under Section 302, 394 and 397 of Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under<br \/>\nSection 302 and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the other offences.<br \/>\nIt was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. So far as<br \/>\nthe accused Durga was concerned, his conviction under Section 380 of Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code was set aside and he was convicted under Section 411 of Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code. But the sentence of 3 years&#8217; rigorous imprisonment was<br \/>\nmaintained with a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to suffer further<br \/>\nimprisonment for 9 months. The appeal by the State against all the other<br \/>\naccused directed against their acquittal under Section 120B of Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode was dismissed by the High Court and the appeal against acquittal of<br \/>\nParsoo and Durga for the offences punish-able under Sections 302, 394 and<br \/>\nSection 397 of Indian Penal Code was also dismissed. Against the order of<br \/>\nconviction and sentence passed by the High Court, accused No. l Gulab Chand<br \/>\nhas preferred the instant appeals No. 140-140A\/84.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel Mr. Amtiaz Ahmed, appearing as amicus curie for the<br \/>\nappellant Gulab Chand has submitted that there is no evidence worthy of<br \/>\ncredence to establish the crime of murder and dacoity by Gulab Chand for<br \/>\nwhich his conviction under Section 302, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode is warranted. In the absence of any convincing evidence, the learned<br \/>\nSessions Judge had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections<br \/>\n302, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s case was that the ornaments stated to have been recovered<br \/>\neither from his possession or from the shop, belonged to him and the<br \/>\nmembers of his family. Unfortunately, such case has not been accepted<br \/>\neither by the learned trial court or by the High Court. But for possession<br \/>\nof such ornaments even if stolen, no conviction under Section 320, 394 and<br \/>\n397 of the Indian Penal Code can be based. The learned Sessions Judge was<br \/>\nfully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 380 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code and there was no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned<br \/>\njudgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant has also submitted that no motive for dacoity or murdering the<br \/>\ndeceased has been established by leading convincing evidence. The decision<br \/>\nrendered by the High Court lies more on surmise than on facts proved beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt. It has been submitted that in a case for conviction on<br \/>\naccount of circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be very clear and<br \/>\nspecific so that the entire chain of events justifying complicity of the<br \/>\naccused is clearly established to such an extent that irresistible<br \/>\nconclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn. The learned<br \/>\nappellant has submitted that possession of stolen articles ipso facto does<br \/>\nnot warrant a conclusion that such stolen articles were received only by<br \/>\ncommitting robbery and murder, as alleged by the prosecution. He has,<br \/>\ntherefore, submitted that there has been gross miscarriage of justice so<br \/>\nfar as the appellant is concerned and this appeal should be allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned order of conviction passed against the appellant should be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have considered the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and<br \/>\nalso by the High Court and we have been taken through the evidences adduced<br \/>\nin this case. It has been established in the instant case that the<br \/>\nappellant Gulab Chand was taken into custody on 27th April, 1979 by the<br \/>\npolice and when the police searched his house with the key supplied by the<br \/>\naccused, a musical instrument called Banjo was found in his room and from<br \/>\ninside the said instrument, the police seized golden Tabij (Article 10),<br \/>\ntwo pair of Jhumkas (Article 11), Shrinagaridan (Article 9), silver bangles<br \/>\n(Art. 7), one brass Bungari (Art. 21) and currency notes worth Rs. 1200. It<br \/>\nhas also been established in this case that on the information given by the<br \/>\nsaid accused, the police seized certain silver ornaments from PW. 12.<br \/>\nBalram from his shop at Jabalpur and it has been established that the<br \/>\naccused sold the said ornaments to Balram and signed in the register<br \/>\nmaintained by Balram in proof of selling the said ornaments. It has also<br \/>\nbeen established by cogent evidence that the said ornaments belonged to the<br \/>\ndeceased. It may be stated that 29th May, 1979, a test identification<br \/>\nParade was held in which the recovered ornaments were duly identified as<br \/>\nbelonging to the deceased by Durgaprasad and other witnesses. It is true<br \/>\nthat simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn<br \/>\nthat a person in possession of the stolen articles is guilty of the offence<br \/>\nof murder and robbery. But culpability for the aforesaid offences will<br \/>\ndepend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of<br \/>\nevidence adduced. It has been indicated by this Court in Santhanakrishnan<br \/>\nv. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1956) SC 54, that no hard and fast rule can be<br \/>\nlaid down as to what inference should be drawn from certain circumstances.<br \/>\nIt has also been indicated that where only evidence against the accused is<br \/>\nrecovery of stolen properties, then although the circumstances may indicate<br \/>\nthat the theft and murder might have been committed at the same time, it is<br \/>\nnot safe to draw an inference that the person in possession of the stolen<br \/>\nproperty had committed the murder. A note of caution has been given by this<br \/>\ncourt by indicating that suspicion should not take the place of proof. It<br \/>\nappears that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment has taken note<br \/>\nof the said decision of this Court. But as rightly indicated by the High<br \/>\nCourt the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe present case. The High Court has placed reliance on the other decision<br \/>\nof this Court rendered in Tulsiram v. State, AIR (1954) SC 1. In the said<br \/>\ndecision, this court has indicated that the presumption permitted to be<br \/>\ndrawn under Section 114, illustration (a) of the Evidence Act has to be<br \/>\nread along with the &#8216;important time factor&#8217;. If the ornaments in possession<br \/>\nof the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the murder,<br \/>\na presumption of guilt may be permitted. But if Several months had expired<br \/>\nin the interval, the presumption cannot be permitted to be drawn having<br \/>\nregard to the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, it has been<br \/>\nestablished that immediately on the next day of the murder, the accused<br \/>\nGulab Chand had sold some of the ornaments belonging to the deceased and<br \/>\nwithin 3-4 days, the recovery of the said stolen articles was made from his<br \/>\nhouse, at the instance of the accused. Such close proximity of the<br \/>\nrecovery, which has been indicated by this Court as an &#8220;important time<br \/>\nfactor&#8221;, should not be lost sight of in deciding the present case. It may<br \/>\nbe indicated here that in a later decision of this Court in Earabharappa v.<br \/>\nState of Karnataka, [1983] 2 SCC 330, this Court has held that the nature<br \/>\nof the presumption and illustration (a) under Section 114 of the Evidence<br \/>\nAct must depend upon the nature of evidence adduced. No fixed time limit<br \/>\ncan be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and<br \/>\neach case must be judged on its own facts. The question as to what amounts<br \/>\nto recent possession sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies<br \/>\naccording as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily<br \/>\nfrom hand to hand. If the stolen articles where such as were not likely to<br \/>\npass readily from hand to hand, the period of one year that elapsed cannot<br \/>\nbe said to be too long particularly when the appellant had been absconding<br \/>\nduring that period. In our view, it has been rightly held by the High Court<br \/>\nthat the accused was not affluent enough to possess the said ornaments and<br \/>\nfrom the nature of the evidence adduced in this case and from the recovery<br \/>\nof the said articles from his possession and his dealing with the ornaments<br \/>\nof the deceased immediately after the murder and robbery a reasonable<br \/>\ninference of the commission of the said offence can be drawn against the<br \/>\nappellant. Excepting an assertion that the ornaments belonged to the family<br \/>\nof the accused which claim has been rightly discarded, no plausible<br \/>\nexplanation for lawful possession of the said ornaments immediately after<br \/>\nthe murder has been given by the accused. In the facts of this case, it<br \/>\nappears to us that murder and robbery have been proved to have been<br \/>\nintegral parts of the same transaction and therefore the presumption<br \/>\narising under illustration (a) of Section 114 Evidence Act is that not only<br \/>\nthe appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed<br \/>\nrobbery of her ornaments. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere<br \/>\nwith the impugned decision of the High Court and accordingly this appeal<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant has been released on bail. He should be taken into custody to<br \/>\nundergo the sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 Bench: G.N. Ray, Faizan Uddin CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 140-140A of 1984 PETITIONER: GULAB CHAND RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/1995 BENCH: G.N. RAY &amp; FAIZAN UDDIN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995 (3) SCR 27 The following Order of [&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-72330","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>Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - 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\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-30T20:37:29+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\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-30T20:37:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1824,\"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\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\",\"name\":\"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-30T20:37:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - 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\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-30T20:37:29+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\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995","datePublished":"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-30T20:37:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995"},"wordCount":1824,"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\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995","name":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-30T20:37:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-chand-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-march-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulab Chand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 1995"}]},{"@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\/72330","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=72330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}