{"id":74012,"date":"2010-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-25T15:55:10","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T10:25:10","slug":"mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                                      Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan\n                                       D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004\n\n                                1\n\n   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                       JODHPUR.\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n\nMohan Singh & ors.           Versus           State of Rajasthan.\n\n\n        D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.70\/2004 against\n        the judgment and order dated 06-12-2003\n        passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast\n        Track), Rajsamand, Camp Udaipur, in Sessions\n        Case No. 27\/2003.\n                               ...\n\n\nDate of Judgment:                                         June 22, 2010\n\n\n                            PRESENT\n\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR.\n         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI.\n\n\nSarvashri Deepak Menaria, Shambhoo Singh Rathore and Kalu\nRam Bhati, for the appellant-accused.\n\nMr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor for the State.\n\n\nBY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Joshi, J.)<\/pre>\n
           By this D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal, appellants Mohan<\/p>\n
Singh, Mane Singh alias Maniya and Devi Singh, have assailed<\/p>\n
the judgment and order dated 06-12-2003 passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, Camp<\/p>\n
Udaipur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter), whereby the<\/p>\n
appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections<\/p>\n
302\/34 and 341 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and<\/p>\n
a fine of Rs.1000\/-, in default of payment of fine to further
\n                                        Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                        D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence<\/p>\n
under   Section   302\/34    IPC;       and     one      months’       simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC.<\/p>\n
           The facts of the case, in succinct, are that                     on<\/p>\n
02-12-2002, complainant Manna Lal Gamar lodged a written<\/p>\n
report with Police Station, Ogana to the effect that at 8.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
on the day before, his father Rajmal, who was coming home<\/p>\n
alongwith Bheru Singh and Dharam Chand, was attacked by<\/p>\n
some unknown persons and murdered while attacking with<\/p>\n
sharp-edged    weapons     and   stones.       On     this    report,      FIR<\/p>\n
No.122\/2002 under Sections 341, 302 IPC was registered and<\/p>\n
the investigation ensued. After conclusion of investigation, the<\/p>\n
police arraigned five persons for the said offence in the Court of<\/p>\n
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, from where the<\/p>\n
case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur and<\/p>\n
ultimately the case was transferred to the trial Court.<\/p>\n
           The learned trial Court, framed charges against the<\/p>\n
accused under Sections 148, 341, 302\/149 IPC, to which they<\/p>\n
denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in<\/p>\n
support of its case, examined 23 witnesses and produced<\/p>\n
documentary evidence from EX.P\/1 to EX.P\/40. The statement<\/p>\n
of the appellants alongwith co-accused were recorded under<\/p>\n
section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied allegations and claimed<\/p>\n
to be tried.   In defence, neither any oral nor documentary<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced by the appellants and co-accused.\n<\/p>\n
                                     Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                     D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
            After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and<\/p>\n
the learned Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence on<\/p>\n
record, the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
order dated 06-12-2003, acquitted other co-accused, viz. Kishna<\/p>\n
and Poon Singh, of the offences under Sections 341 and 302\/34<\/p>\n
IPC; however convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated<\/p>\n
above. Hence this criminal jail appeal by the present appellants.<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, carefully gone<\/p>\n
through the impugned judgment and order, as also the record of<\/p>\n
the case.\n<\/p>\n
            The main contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants is that FIR (Ex.P.1) was lodged at the Police Station<\/p>\n
Ogana on 02.12.2002 in respect of the alleged incident of<\/p>\n
01.12.2002 said to happen at 8.00 p.m. and the FIR (Ex.P.1)<\/p>\n
does not contain the names of the accused appellants and it is<\/p>\n
only stated that 4 unknown person committed murder of the<\/p>\n
father of the complainant Manna Lal (P.W.2) with stones and<\/p>\n
some sharp-edged weapon. He has further contended that as<\/p>\n
per the prosecution story, there were 2 eye-witnesses,<\/p>\n
namely, P.W.1 Dharmchand and P.W.10 Bheru Singh and as<\/p>\n
per the cross-examination available on record of these 2<\/p>\n
witnesses, before filing of the FIR at the police station by<\/p>\n
Manna Lal (P.W.2), the fact of causing injuries by accused<\/p>\n
persons, namely, Mane Singh, Mohan Singh, Devi Singh, Poon
\n                                     Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                     D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh and Kishna, was disclosed to the FIR lodger Manna Lal<\/p>\n
(P.W.2) and still the fact of non-bearing of the names of the<\/p>\n
accused in the FIR makes the story of the prosecution<\/p>\n
doubtful,   unreliable   and   untrustworthy.          Further       it   is<\/p>\n
submitted that vide judgment dated 06.12.2003, the learned<\/p>\n
trial court acquitted two accused persons, namely, Kishna S\/o<\/p>\n
Lala Gamar and Poon Singh S\/o Dhool Singh Garasia out of 5<\/p>\n
accused persons and now in this appeal this court is to<\/p>\n
appreciate the evidence against 3 appellants, namely, Devi<\/p>\n
Singh S\/o Dhan Singh, Mane Singh @ Maniya S\/o Nathu Singh<\/p>\n
Garasia and Mohan Singh S\/o Chain Singh Garasia. Hence, it<\/p>\n
is urged that the accused appellants may be acquitted from<\/p>\n
the charges levelled against them by allowing this appeal.<\/p>\n
            Learned Public Prosecutor while controverting the<\/p>\n
above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that the FIR is only a document to move<\/p>\n
the police in motion for investigation and it is not necessary<\/p>\n
that it should bear each and every minute fact of the incident<\/p>\n
or the names of the accused persons.            It may be fatal in<\/p>\n
appropriated cases, but it depends upon the facts of each case<\/p>\n
and particularly in this case the FIR lodger Manna Lal (P.W.2)<\/p>\n
was not an eye-witness and although the eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
Dharmchand (P.W.1) and Bheru Singh (P.W.10) stated in their<\/p>\n
cross-examination that they have informed the son of the
\n                                    Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                    D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased, who is the complainant in this case, regarding the<\/p>\n
overt act of each accused and the names of all the person who<\/p>\n
were responsible for causing the death of the deceased, but<\/p>\n
the mental status of the complainant or near relatives of the<\/p>\n
deceased sometimes may not be so that they can incorporate<\/p>\n
the names of the accused in the FIR and not mentioning the<\/p>\n
names of the persons causing injuries or death in itself is no<\/p>\n
ground for not relying upon the entire prosecution story.<\/p>\n
Hence, it is urged that the judgment and sentence passed by<\/p>\n
the learned trial court requires no interference and this appeal<\/p>\n
deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           We have given our thoughtful consideration to the<\/p>\n
rival contentions made by both the parties and carefully<\/p>\n
scanned and evaluated the evidence available on record. The<\/p>\n
learned trial court while recording the order of conviction held<\/p>\n
the accused appellants Devi Singh, Mane Singh @ Maniya and<\/p>\n
Mohan Singh guilty under Section 341 and 302\/34 IPC. There<\/p>\n
is evidence on record of 2 eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1<\/p>\n
Dharmchand and P.W.10 Bheru Singh that for 3 to 4 days<\/p>\n
they were detained by the police and they have categorically<\/p>\n
asserted in the evidence that they informed the complainant<\/p>\n
Manna Lal (P.W.2) about the whole incident and the names of<\/p>\n
the accused persons on the same day (date of the incident).<\/p>\n
           P.W.2 Mannalal who happens to be the son of the
\n                                         Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                         D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased    and   also   lodged   the      first   information         report<\/p>\n
corroborates the evidence of both the eye-witnesses, namely,<\/p>\n
P.W.1 Dharmchand and P.W.10 Bheru Singh on the point that<\/p>\n
both these witnesses disclosed the names of the accused<\/p>\n
persons on the same day (date of incident).                 In the cross-<\/p>\n
examination, P.W.2 Mannalal categorically deposed that while<\/p>\n
he visited the site of incident, he was informed about the<\/p>\n
names of the accused by P.W.1 Dharmchand and P.W.10<\/p>\n
Bheru Singh. He further stated in his cross-examination that<\/p>\n
he lodged the first information report against unknown<\/p>\n
persons and in the same breath he further stated that he has<\/p>\n
written the names of the accused persons on the back of the<\/p>\n
first information report, but the first information report does<\/p>\n
not bear the names of the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
            If we read the first information report (Ex.P.1) in<\/p>\n
conjunction with the statement of the two eye-witnesses,<\/p>\n
namely, P.W.1 Dharmchand and P.W.10 Bheru Singh, this fact is<\/p>\n
well-proved that before filing of the first information report in the<\/p>\n
police station, the fact of the names of the accused persons was<\/p>\n
well within the knowledge of P.W.2 Manna Lal. Moreover there<\/p>\n
are inherent contradictions in the statements of the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer Chhagan Lal (P.W.22) and other witnesses, namely,<\/p>\n
P.W.1 Dharmchand, P.W.2 Mannalal and P.W.10 Bheru Singh,<\/p>\n
regarding the fact of availability of the eye-witnesses                 to the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer for recording of their statements.               As per
\n                                        Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                        D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
the version available on record of the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
Chhagan Lal (P.W.22), both the eye-witnesses could be available<\/p>\n
to him only on the next day of the incident for recording their<\/p>\n
statements during investigation, whereas P.W.1 Dharmchand,<\/p>\n
P.W.2 Mannalal and P.W.10 Bheru Singh categorically and<\/p>\n
emphatically deposed that on the date of incident, police came to<\/p>\n
the site and they were present there also.\n<\/p>\n
             So far as the contention as urged by the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor that it is well-settled principle of law that first<\/p>\n
information report is only a document to move the police in<\/p>\n
motion and it is not necessary that it should contain every<\/p>\n
minute details of the incident\/crime, but again it depends on the<\/p>\n
facts of each case.      There will be cases in which names of the<\/p>\n
assailants   may   not    come   to   the   knowledge        of    the    first<\/p>\n
information lodger before filing it in the police station and in<\/p>\n
those cases it is not necessary that first information report<\/p>\n
should bear the names of the accused persons. In this particular<\/p>\n
case, if we conjointly read the statements of the witnesses,<\/p>\n
namely, P.W.1 Dharmchand, P.W.2 Mannalal, P.W.10 Bheru<\/p>\n
Singh and P.W.22 Chhagan Lal, it appears that the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer wanted to suppress the fact of knowledge of the names of<\/p>\n
the accused persons prior to filing of the first information report<\/p>\n
and thus, the version of P.W.22 Chhagan Lal creates serious<\/p>\n
doubts about the prosecution story.          In this case, since the<\/p>\n
names of the accused persons were within the knowledge of the
\n                                         Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                         D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
first information lodger, i.e. P.W.2 Mannalal, and in view of his<\/p>\n
statement that on the back of the report he wrote the names of<\/p>\n
the accused, the contention as urged by the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor does not stand.\n<\/p>\n
           Apart     from    undue   delay      in    lodging      the     first<\/p>\n
information report which has not been satisfactorily explained,<\/p>\n
there is another reason also to throw the testimony of P.W.1<\/p>\n
Dharmchand     and    P.W.10    Bheru     Singh      because        there     is<\/p>\n
irreconcilable inconsistency between their oral statement and the<\/p>\n
statement contained in the FIR.      The names of both the eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses find mention in the FIR, but the names of the culprits<\/p>\n
are significantly omitted.    As per the FIR, the assailants were<\/p>\n
unknown persons and on the contrary, these two eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
as also P.W.2 Mannalal who lodged the FIR have categorically<\/p>\n
stated on oath that soon after arrival, these two eye-witnesses<\/p>\n
disclosed the names of the assailants also while narrating the<\/p>\n
incident to the lodger of the FIR P.W.2 Mannalal and at the same<\/p>\n
time non-bearing of the names of the assailants in the FIR<\/p>\n
creates serious doubts on the prosecution story.<\/p>\n
           Secondly, the two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.1<\/p>\n
Dharmchand and P.W.10 Bheru Singh were suspects of the crime<\/p>\n
and therefore, they were also detained in the police custody as<\/p>\n
admitted by both these witnesses, thus, being interested in<\/p>\n
shifting the guilt to others they could tell anything untrue to any<\/p>\n
extent and they had motive to involve any other person in place
\n                                            Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n                                            D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004<\/p>\n
                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
      of themselves. The motive as put forth in the prosecution story<\/p>\n
      is also of weak nature.\n<\/p>\n
                    The ocular evidence is not reliable and after its<\/p>\n
      exclusion, circumstantial evidence as led by the prosecution also<\/p>\n
      falls flat on the floor as the circumstantial evidence alone is not<\/p>\n
      of such nature which can connect the accused appellants with<\/p>\n
      the crime.\n<\/p>\n
                    In the entirety of things, it can be said that the<\/p>\n
      prosecution has failed to prove the guilt to the hilt. The evidence<\/p>\n
      as it exist demand extending of benefit of doubt to the accused<\/p>\n
      appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                    Resultantly, on the discussion made above, benefit<\/p>\n
      of doubt is given to the accused appellants and thereby the<\/p>\n
      appeal preferred by the appellants Devi Singh S\/o Dhan<\/p>\n
      Singh, Mane Singh @ Maniya S\/o Nathu Singh Garasia and<\/p>\n
      Mohan Singh S\/o Chain Singh Garasia is allowed and<\/p>\n
      judgment of conviction and order awarding sentence passed<\/p>\n
      by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, Camp<\/p>\n
      Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 27\/2003 is set aside and the<\/p>\n
      appellants named above are acquitted of the charges levelled<\/p>\n
      against them. The appellants named above be set at liberty<\/p>\n
      forthwith if not required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n
  (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI), J.                     (GOVIND MATHUR), J.<\/p>\n
mcs\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010 Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 70\/2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Mohan Singh & ors. Versus State of Rajasthan. D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No.70\/2004 against […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 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\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-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=\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T10:25:10+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T10:25:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2114,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T10:25:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 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":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 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\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T10:25:10+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T10:25:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010"},"wordCount":2114,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010","name":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T10:25:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-ors-vs-state-on-22-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Singh & Ors vs State on 22 June, 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\/74012","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=74012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}