{"id":79217,"date":"1998-01-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-01-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998"},"modified":"2018-06-15T08:26:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T02:56:31","slug":"babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","title":{"rendered":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Nanavati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.T. Nanavati, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBABU RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/01\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nG.T. NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nNANAVATI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These two\tappeals arise  out of the common judgment of<br \/>\nthe High  Court of Delhi in  Criminal Appeal Nos. 116\/84 and<br \/>\n131\/84. Criminal  Appeal No.  116\/84 was  filed by convicted<br \/>\naccused La&#8217;s  Ram and Om Prakash. Criminal Appeal No. 131\/84<br \/>\nwas filed  by accused  Thakur Singh.  The three accused were<br \/>\ntried and  convicted for the offence of murder, by the Court<br \/>\nof Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52\/82.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  case was\tthat a few days prior to the<br \/>\ndate of\t the incident,\twherein Padam Singh lost his life, a<br \/>\nquarrel had taken place between Padam Singh and the accused.<br \/>\nBut the\t father and  brother of\t Padam Singh  intervened and<br \/>\npacified them.\tOn 19.2.1982  at about\t4.15 p.m. when Padam<br \/>\nSingh was  passing through  Gali  No.4,\t the  three  accused<br \/>\ncaught him  and told  him that\the was\tsaved earlier by his<br \/>\nfather and brother but they would not leave him on that day.<br \/>\nOm Prakash  held Padam\tSingh from  behind and the other two<br \/>\naccused,  namely,   Thakur  Singh  and\tLala  Ram  inflicted<br \/>\ninjuries on  the front and back of Padam Singh with daggers.<br \/>\nBabu Ram,  father of  Padam Singh,  who was  following Padam<br \/>\nSing, saw  this incident and raised cries for saving his son<br \/>\nand catching  the accused.  Hearing his\t cries many  people,<br \/>\nincluding Prabhu  Dayal, Pyare Lal, Sua Lal and others, came<br \/>\nthere. Babu  Ram himself  was able  to catch hold of accused<br \/>\nLala Ram.  Prabhu Dayal ran after Om Prakash and caught him.<br \/>\nThakur Singh  was caught while running away by Pyare Lal and<br \/>\nSua Lal.  Meanwhile the police party headed by sub-inspector<br \/>\nDharam Pal,  which was on patrolling duty, reached that spot<br \/>\nand came  to know  about the incident. The three accused who<br \/>\nwere caught  by that time were handed over to the police. On<br \/>\nthese allegations  all the  three  accused  were  tried\t for<br \/>\ncommitting the\toffence punishable  under Section  302\tread<br \/>\nwith Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  examined Babu  Ram (PW-3),  Pyare\t Lal<br \/>\n(PW-4), Prabhu\tDayal (PW-6)  and  Sua\tLal  (PW-7)  as\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses. It  also lead  other supporting and corroborative<br \/>\nevidence. The  trial court  rejected the  contention of\t the<br \/>\naccused that  there was\t delay in recording the FIR and that<br \/>\nthe delay was because till the next day morning names of the<br \/>\nassailants were\t not known.  It believed the evidence of the<br \/>\neye witnesses and held all the three accuse guilty.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court, mainly  relying upon  the substance of<br \/>\ninformation noted  in Ex.  DW 2\/A  based upon  D.D entry No.<br \/>\n16A, recorded  in Rojnamcha,  maintained at  the Patel Nagar<br \/>\nPolice Station,\t which did not contain names of the accused,<br \/>\nnames of  the eye witnesses, the place of occurrence and the<br \/>\nweapons used  and also the circumstance that copy of the FIR<br \/>\nhad reached the Ilaka Magistrate at 10.00 a.m. on 20.2.1982,<br \/>\nheld that  in all  probability the FIR was not recorded till<br \/>\nnext  day  morning.  The  High\tCourt  also  held  that\t the<br \/>\ncircumstance, that  the dead  body was\tnot removed from the<br \/>\nspit till  1.10 a.m.  and that\tthe  formal  arrest  of\t the<br \/>\naccused was  shown at  about 1.30 a.m., also created a doubt<br \/>\nregarding the  genuineness of  the version given in the FIR.<br \/>\nThe High Court rejected the evidence of eye witnesses on the<br \/>\nground that  injury No.8,  could not have been caused if the<br \/>\ndeceased was held by accused Om Prakash in the manner stated<br \/>\nby  them.  Another  reason  given  by  the  High  Court\t for<br \/>\ndiscarding their  evidence is  that they  were appearing  as<br \/>\nwitnesses and  supporting each\tother in  numerous  criminal<br \/>\ncases. Taking  this  view  the\tHigh  Court  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nconviction and acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aggrieved by  the acquittal  of the  accused Babu\tRam,<br \/>\nfather of  the deceased and a prosecution witness, has filed<br \/>\nthese  appeals\t after\tobtaining  special  leave.  What  is<br \/>\ncontended by  the learned  counsel for the appellant is that<br \/>\nthe reasons  given by  the High Court for holding that there<br \/>\nwas delay  in recording\t the FIR are not at all sustainable.<br \/>\nHe also\t submitted that\t the two  main reasons\tgiven by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  for discarding the evidence of the eye witnesses<br \/>\nare  also  not\tsustainable  as\t the  evidence\tof  the\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses  is  really  not  inconsistent  with\tthe  medical<br \/>\nevidence and  is also  not  correct  to\t say  that  the\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses had  appeared as  witnesses in  numerous  criminal<br \/>\ncases and  had supported each other. The learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe  respondents-accused   tried  to  support  the  findings<br \/>\nrecorded by  the High Court on the same grounds as are given<br \/>\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  now not  in dispute that the incident took place<br \/>\nat about  4.15 p.m.  in Gali  No. 4  of\t Than  Singh  Nagar,<br \/>\nfalling within\tAnand Parbat  Police  Post,  situated  at  a<br \/>\ndistance of  about 2.5 Kms. from Patel Nagar Police Station.<br \/>\nThe FIR\t (Ex. PW-8\/B)  shows that  it was  recorded at about<br \/>\n5.35 p.m. It refers to D.D. entry No. 16A (Ex. DW-2A), which<br \/>\nhas been  heavily relied upon by the High Court for doubting<br \/>\nthe correctness\t of the\t entries made  in the  FIR regarding<br \/>\ntime and  names of the accused. The said entry was proved by<br \/>\nHead Constable Om Prakash (DW-2), and reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Copy  of\treport\tNo.  16\/A  dated<br \/>\n     19.2.82 of the roznamcha maintained<br \/>\n     at Police Station Patel Nagar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     D.O.     Intimation     for     the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">     registration of  case (FIR) No. 110<\/span><br \/>\n     for an    offence\tpunishable  us\/s<br \/>\n     302\/34 IPC .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     Time  5.35 P.M.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     At this  time a  writing in  hindi,<br \/>\n     prepared and  sent by  S.I.  Dharam<br \/>\n     Pal I\/c P.P. Anand Parbat, Delhi on<br \/>\n     the basis of statement made by Shri<br \/>\n     Babu Ram  s\/o Shri\t Prem Singh  r\/o<br \/>\n     H.No. 187A,  Gali No. 7, Than Singh<br \/>\n     Nagar, Anand  Parbat New  Delhi has<br \/>\n     been received at the police station<br \/>\n     for registering  a case  punishable<br \/>\n     u\/s 302\/34\t IPC through  Const. Ram<br \/>\n     Pal No.  569\/C.  On  the  basis  of<br \/>\n     which a  case (FIR)  No.  110  u\/s.<br \/>\n     302\/34 IPC was prepared.<br \/>\n     Scribed by ASI\/DO&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The High  Court, after  referring to this entry and the<br \/>\nevidence of Jai Pal Singh (PW-8), held that what was sent by<br \/>\nS.I.Dharam Pal (PW-15) was only an intimation to register an<br \/>\noffence and  as names  of accused,  witnesses were not known<br \/>\ntill than  the formal FIR was no prepared at that time. What<br \/>\nthe High  Court had  overlooked is the object of making that<br \/>\nentry. As  an intimation  was received\tform an\t officer  in<br \/>\ncharge of  a police  post, that\t fact was noted in the daily<br \/>\ndiary. The  said entry\trefers\tto  the\t writing  in  Hindi,<br \/>\nprepared by  Sub-inspector Dharam  Pal on  the basis  of the<br \/>\nstatement made\tby Babu\t Ram. That  report was also produced<br \/>\nand marked Ex. PW-8\/A. It appear below the statement of Babu<br \/>\nRam, which  is marked as Ex. PW-3\/A. The report contains the<br \/>\nnames  of  the\taccused\t and  the  witnesses  and  also\t the<br \/>\nsubstance of  the information received by him. The statement<br \/>\nof Babu\t Ram also  contained all  those details. This report<br \/>\nwas dispatched\tat 5.00 p.m. as stated in the report itself.<br \/>\nThe High  Court really\tmisunderstood the D.D. entry No. 16A<br \/>\nand overlooked the other evidence in that behalf. Therefore,<br \/>\nits finding  based upon\t such improper\tappreciation  stands<br \/>\nvitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court also  failed to take into consideration<br \/>\nthe  extracts\tproduced  from\t the  register\tof  malkhana<br \/>\nmaintained at  Patel Nagar  Police  Station  (Ex.  PW-14\/A),<br \/>\nwhich also  show that  by 1.30 a.m. the blood stained cloths<br \/>\nof accused  Om Prakash,\t Lala  Ram  and\t Thakur\t Singh\twere<br \/>\nalready deposited  in the  malkhana. It\t is also in evidence<br \/>\nthat the  letter of  request written by sub-inspector Dharam<br \/>\nPal to the C.M.O. Police Hospital for conducting post-mortem<br \/>\non the dead body of Padam Singh was received in the hospital<br \/>\nat night.  All these  pieces of\t evidence clearly  establish<br \/>\nthat all  the details regarding the incident has reached the<br \/>\npolice station\tby about  5.30 p.m.  We Therefore, hold that<br \/>\nthere was  no delay  in recording  the FIR  and that  it was<br \/>\ntruly recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Even if  it is  believed that the special report, which<br \/>\nwas sent to the Metropolitan Magistrate, was received by him<br \/>\non 20.2.1982 at 10.00 a.m. that circumstance in the facts of<br \/>\nthis case cannot be regarded as sufficient to create a doubt<br \/>\nregarding  genuineness\t of  the   time\t and  other  details<br \/>\ncontained in the First Information Report. As stated earlier<br \/>\nmany other  documents, which had already come into existence<br \/>\nb y  1.30 a.m.\tand genuineness of which could not have been<br \/>\ndoubted, contain names of the accused and description of the<br \/>\nweapons with which they had attacked the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On close  scrutiny of  the\t evidence  of  the  two\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses,  we\tfind  that  High  Court\t was  not  right  in<br \/>\ndiscarding their  evidence on the ground that their evidence<br \/>\nis not consistent with the medical evidence and that the eye<br \/>\nwitnesses had  appeared as  witnesses in  numerous  criminal<br \/>\ncases. The  evidence on\t record does  not show that they had<br \/>\nappeared as  witnesses in  number of criminal cases together<br \/>\nor separately.\tWhat the  defence has been able to establish<br \/>\nis that\t only in  one case  under Section  324 IPC Babu Ram,<br \/>\nPyare La  and Sua  Lal were  the witnesses.  Pyare  Lal\t and<br \/>\nPrabhu Dayal  are co-accused  in one criminal case. But that<br \/>\nwas an election case and the offence was regarding fixing of<br \/>\nposters. That  case was filed against as many as 73 persons.<br \/>\nPrabhu Dayal  was a  witness in one case filed by the mother<br \/>\nof Babu\t Ram. From this evidence it was not proper to record<br \/>\na finding  that es Babu Ram, Pyare Lal and Prabhu Dayal were<br \/>\noften appearing\t as witnesses  in criminal  cases  and\twere<br \/>\nsupporting each\t other.\t They  were  residing  in  the\tsame<br \/>\nlocality and  Babu Ram\tbeing a\t social worker\tit was quite<br \/>\nnatural that  he knew  some of\tthe  eye-witnesses  and\t was<br \/>\neither a  co-accused or\t a co-witness  in some\tcourt cases.<br \/>\nExpect the  cases referred  to above Babu Ram, Pyare Lal and<br \/>\nPrabhu Dayal  did not  appear as  witnesses together  in any<br \/>\nother case.  It was,  therefore, not  proper to reject their<br \/>\nevidence  on   the  ground   that  they\t were  not  reliable<br \/>\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  also of  the view that their evidence ought not<br \/>\nto have\t been discarded\t on the\t ground that  the  same\t was<br \/>\ninconsistence with  the medical evidence. Injury No 8 was on<br \/>\nthe back  of the  deceased. No\tdoubt the eye-witnesses have<br \/>\nstated that  accuse Om\tPrakash had  caught Padam Singh from<br \/>\nbehind by putting his hands around the waist of Padam Singh.<br \/>\nThe hands  of Padam  Singh were\t free as they were above the<br \/>\ngrip of Om Prakash. That would indicate that the movement on<br \/>\nthe part  of Padam  Singh was  possible and the whole of his<br \/>\nback was  not covered  by the body of Om Prakash. Therefore,<br \/>\nmerely because\tthe prosecution\t witnesses had\tstated\tthat<br \/>\ndeceased Padam\tSingh was  held by Om Prakash from behind it<br \/>\ncannot be  said that  no blow  with a  knife could have been<br \/>\ngiven by the other accused on the back of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High Court also committed a grave error in doubting<br \/>\nthe prosecution\t evidence on  the ground that no independent<br \/>\nwitnesses were\texamined. Though  the incident\thad happened<br \/>\nduring the  day time there is nothing on record to show that<br \/>\nother persons  had witnessed  the  same.  Nothing  has\tbeen<br \/>\nbrought out  in the evidence of the Investigation Officer on<br \/>\nthe basis of which it can be said that the investigation had<br \/>\ndisclosed that there were other eye witnesses. In absence of<br \/>\nany material  it  was  not  at\tall  proper  to\t reject\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  evidence\ton  the\t  ground  that\t independent<br \/>\nwitnesses  from\t the  locality\twere  not  examined  as\t eye<br \/>\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As we  find  that\tthe  High  Court  has  rejected\t the<br \/>\nevidence of the three eye-witnesses on grounds which are not<br \/>\nsustainable the order of acquittal passed by it will have to<br \/>\nbe set\taside. That  is not  a case where on appreciation of<br \/>\nevidence a  different view  has been  taken. As\t pointed out<br \/>\nabove  the  findings  of  the  High  Court  are\t based\tupon<br \/>\nincorrect reading  of the evidence and grounds which are not<br \/>\ntenable. We,  therefore, allow\tthese appeals, set aside the<br \/>\njudgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court and<br \/>\nrestore the  judgment of the trial court whereby the accused<br \/>\nrespondents were  convicted  under  Section  302  read\twith<br \/>\nSection 34  IPC and  sentenced to  suffer  imprisonment\t for<br \/>\nlife. As  the accused  have been released on bail during the<br \/>\npendency of  these appeals, they are ordered to surrender to<br \/>\ncustody immediately  so as to serve out he remaining part of<br \/>\ntheir sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998 Author: Nanavati Bench: G.T. Nanavati, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: BABU RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/01\/1998 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T NANAVATI,J. These [&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-79217","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>Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - 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\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T02:56:31+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\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T02:56:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2140,\"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\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\",\"name\":\"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T02:56:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - 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\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T02:56:31+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\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998","datePublished":"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T02:56:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998"},"wordCount":2140,"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\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998","name":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And ... on 8 January, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T02:56:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-state-delhi-administration-and-on-8-january-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu Ram vs State (Delhi Administration) And &#8230; on 8 January, 1998"}]},{"@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\/79217","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=79217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}