{"id":84072,"date":"2010-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-10T21:00:11","modified_gmt":"2016-05-10T15:30:11","slug":"ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                                           1\n\n\n\n\nAFR\nRESERVED\n\nCourt No. - 10\n\nCase :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 211 of 1996\nPetitioner :- Ram Sahai & Others\nRespondent :- State Of U.P.\nPetitioner Counsel :- Virendra Mohan,Amol Kumar,Tribhuban Narain Singh\nRespondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,T.N. Yadav\n\n\nHon'ble Y.K.Sangal, J.\n<\/pre>\n
        This appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused appellants Ram Sahai,<\/p>\n
Smt. Shiv Kali, Pradeep Kumar and Bablu against the judgement and order<\/p>\n
dated 14th May, 1996 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi<\/p>\n
in S.T. No. 496 of 1993 under Section 304 B, 498-A IPC and 3\/4 Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
        By the impugned judgement and order, learned Sessions Judge held guilty<\/p>\n
to the accused appellants along with accused Anil(not appellant in this appeal)<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IpC and Section 4 of the Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act. They were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 304-B for the term of ten years, under Section 498-A<\/p>\n
IPC for a term of two years and for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry<\/p>\n
Prohibition Act for a term of two years.\n<\/p>\n
        A seperate appeal was filed on behalf of the accused Anil being Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No. 198 of 1996 against the same judgement and order but as per report,<\/p>\n
accused-appellant Anil had died and orders for abating his appeal has already<\/p>\n
been passed vide order dated 04.01.1996, which is clear from the file of that<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
        In the present appeal also appellant Pradeep had died. Orders         of
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissal of his appeal as abated has already been passed on 04.08.2006.<\/p>\n
      As per prosecution case, a report was lodged by Rameshwar Dayal saying<\/p>\n
that he married his daughter Rani Devi (deceased) with Anil Kumar, (accused-<\/p>\n
appellant deceased of Appeal No. 198 of 1996) on 8th June, 1991. After 6 or 7<\/p>\n
months of the marraige, accused Ram Sahai and his wife Shiv Kali made a<\/p>\n
demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and Rs. 25,000\/- from them and they left<\/p>\n
his daughter at her parental house. They are continuously pressing their demand<\/p>\n
saying that his daughter will be taken back at their house only when the<\/p>\n
demand is fulfilled. As per his financial position he payed Rs. 5,000\/-, Electric<\/p>\n
Fan, Box then she was brought her her husband house after 18 months by the<\/p>\n
accused Pradeep. Later on accused Pradeep Kumar (decased) came at his house,<\/p>\n
and pressed the demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and rest money. He stayed<\/p>\n
at their house for 2-3 days and returned back. Again he came on 20th August at<\/p>\n
about 6 O’ clock in the evening along with his Brother Bablu and three unknown<\/p>\n
persons by a Zeep he again came and stated that daughter of the informant is<\/p>\n
seriously ill. If they are intersted to see her they may accompany them. He<\/p>\n
alongwith three other family members started to go to the house of Ram Sahai.<\/p>\n
Pradeep etc. bring them up to Kannauj and under the pretext of Urination they<\/p>\n
left them at Kannauj and escaped with the Zeep. Having doubt on their this<\/p>\n
action, arranging another vehicle they went to the house of Ram Sahai in<\/p>\n
Baziganj. They were informed there that his daughter had been put on fire<\/p>\n
sprinkling Kerosene Oil on her body and they killed her. It was also informed<\/p>\n
to him that since when his daughter was brought at Ram Sahai house, she was<\/p>\n
being beaten by the accused persons. On the day again, she was beaten. She<\/p>\n
became unconscious. Accused persons after sprinkling Kerosene upon her body
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
put her on fire and closed the Kundi of the Kothari from the out side as their<\/p>\n
was space in the door for that purpose. He has further mentioned in the FIR that<\/p>\n
accused Ram Sahai was ‘Malik’ of the marriage and her marriage took place<\/p>\n
from his house. Anil was not having any relation with his natural parents. Still<\/p>\n
Anil is living in the house of the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
      A report of case was registered against the accused persons. Police of<\/p>\n
P.S. concerned started investigation in the matter. Statement of the witnesses<\/p>\n
were recorded. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Partly burn<\/p>\n
cloths were recovered. Panchayatnama of the dead body and relevant papers<\/p>\n
were prepared. Dead body was sealed and sent for post-mortem. Post-mortem<\/p>\n
report was collected. Ante-mortem burn injuries up to 90 % were found on the<\/p>\n
body of the deceased along with two contusions, one on the right Ankle joint<\/p>\n
and the another on the right Toe. In the opinion of the Doctor death was result of<\/p>\n
shock and haemorrhage ante-mortem burn injuries. Investigation was completed<\/p>\n
and charge-sheet was submitted against all the named accused in the FIR.<\/p>\n
      As the case was exclusively triable by the court of Session, the same was<\/p>\n
committed to the court of Session. All the accused persons were charged to face<\/p>\n
trial for the offence as above but they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.<\/p>\n
      On behalf of the prosecution seven witnesses were examined. P.W.-1,<\/p>\n
informant of the case Rameshwar Dayal and P.W. 2 Mool Chandra Sadhoo of<\/p>\n
the accused Ram Sahai and Mediator of the marraige, P.W. 3 Ram Charan the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer of the case, P.W. 4, S.K.Srivastava who conducted the<\/p>\n
post-mortem of the dead body and P.W.-5 Constable Indra Bahadur Singh who<\/p>\n
prepared Chick report Exbt. Ka-6 and entered the case in G.D. Exbt. Ka-7 and<\/p>\n
P.W. 6 Radheyshyam Soni Constable who brought the dead body at the
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Mortuary and P.W. -7 Kaushal Kumar            Sub Inspector who prepared the<\/p>\n
Panchayatnama of the dead body were examined. They have proved the<\/p>\n
documents relied upon by the prosecution side.\n<\/p>\n
      In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused have denied the<\/p>\n
prosecution case and evidence. Accused Anil Kumar admitted his marraige with<\/p>\n
deceased but he had stated that their marriage had taken place more than seven<\/p>\n
years before her death. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in<\/p>\n
this case due to enmity and witnesses have stated against him under the pressure<\/p>\n
of the Police and they are related to the informant. He further stated that he was<\/p>\n
ousted from his parental house 8-9 years before since then he is living in the<\/p>\n
hosue of Ram Sahai and Ram Sahai treat him as his elder son. He used to help<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai in his family affairs. Ram Sahai get solemnised his marriage and<\/p>\n
dowry articles are still with Ram Sahai. Sons of Ram Sahai used to go his In-<\/p>\n
laws house. He never made any demand of Motorcycle from his In-laws. When<\/p>\n
the occurrence took place , he was in her Mausi’s house sitauted in Atwa Back<\/p>\n
and receving information, he came there. He never paid rent of the hosue to<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai. Ram Sahai stated that he has no concern with Anil and Anil never<\/p>\n
helped him in his family affairs. He was not having any family relation with<\/p>\n
Anil. He was his tenant. On the date of occurrence, he himself along with his<\/p>\n
sons was at Press and his wife was in her parental house.\n<\/p>\n
      In their defence, accused persons have examined one Nand Kishor, as<\/p>\n
D.W.-1. He calimed himself neighbourer of Ram Sahai and he tried to support<\/p>\n
the case of Anil given by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Record<\/p>\n
also shows that on behalf of the accused persons copy of Voter-list and the copy<\/p>\n
of the application of the accused Ram Sahai to the S.S.P. was filed.
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
      After hearing the parties counsel and the State counsel and going through<\/p>\n
the record, learned Session Judge passed the impugned judgment and order<\/p>\n
holding guilty to the accused persons as above and sentenced them as above.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this order, appeals were filed.\n<\/p>\n
      As earlier said sperately filed appeal of Anil has already abated and the<\/p>\n
appeal of Pradeep Kumar has already been order to be abated due to his death.<\/p>\n
      It is undisputed fact that Anil (deceased) was married with the daughter of<\/p>\n
D.W.-1 Rameshwar Dayal. As per prosecution case, the marriage took place on<\/p>\n
08.06.1991 but Anil tried to say more than seven years before the death of his<\/p>\n
wife marraige was solemnised. Marriage Card filed on behalf of the prosecution<\/p>\n
available on the record showing that this marriage has taken place on the same<\/p>\n
date i.e. 8th June, 1991 as mentioned in the FIR. P.W.-1 and P.W. -2 have also<\/p>\n
supported the case of the FIR in their on oath statement. Defence witness Nand<\/p>\n
Kishor had tried to support the case of Anil regarding his marriage more than<\/p>\n
seven years before the death of his wife but no documentary evidence was<\/p>\n
adduced on behalf of the accused to support this case. There is no reliable and<\/p>\n
conviencing evidence on the record on behalf of the accused that marriage of<\/p>\n
Anil with the deceased had taken place more than seven years before her death.<\/p>\n
      It is undisputed fact that Anil with his wife was living in the House of<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai, co-accused in seperate room as such was also shown by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer in the site plan. As per case of the accused Ram Sahai,<\/p>\n
Anil was living their as his tenant. Although, Anil claimed in his statement that<\/p>\n
he was not tenant of Ram Sahai and was living there as his family memeber but<\/p>\n
the Investigating Officer, C.O. had found during the course of investigation that<\/p>\n
Anil was living seperatly and Anil was tenant of Ram Sahai and he was living in
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
his House for the last 3 to 4 years only. In Court question from the P.W.-1<\/p>\n
Rameshwar Dayal, it is on the record that Rameshwar Dayal had admitted that<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai has no relation (Restedari) with Anil. There was blood relation-ship<\/p>\n
between Ram Sahai and Anil. It is also not case of the prosecution. At the time<\/p>\n
of arguments on behalf of the prosecution, it was tried to suggest that Anil was<\/p>\n
adopted son of Ram Sahai but nowhere in the evidence of any of the witnesses<\/p>\n
that such adoption was according to provisions of Hindu Adoption and<\/p>\n
Maintenance Act, 1956. Mere living of Anil with the family of Ram Sahai, may<\/p>\n
be as family member, cannot be taken his Adoption by Ram Sahai in the eyes<\/p>\n
of Law. In the marriage Card as well as in the Voter List available on the record<\/p>\n
Anil was shown son of Jagdish. It is on the record that Anil was not at good<\/p>\n
terms with his parents (Janmdata) and he was seperately living from the last 8 -9<\/p>\n
years and Anil himself has stated in his statement under Sectin 313 Cr.P.C. that<\/p>\n
he was ousted form his parental house 8-9 years before. This all above shows<\/p>\n
that Ram Sahai and his two sons and wife were not related with Anil by blood.<\/p>\n
Adoption of Anil by Ram Sahai is not established from the evidence available<\/p>\n
on record. It is undisputed that Anil with his wife was living in the house of<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai. As per prosecution case he was living as family member of Ram<\/p>\n
Sahai but as per case of the accused, he was living as tenant in the house.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that for the sake of<\/p>\n
arguments, if it is taken correct that Anil was living in the house of Ram Sahai,<\/p>\n
may be as his family member, even then Anil was not related with Ram Sahai<\/p>\n
by blood and no adoption of Anil by Ram Sahai is established. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants argued that to hold the accused-appellants guilty for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC, it was mandatory for the
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution to establish that accused-appellants were relative of husband of the<\/p>\n
deceased and prosecution has utterly failed to establish as such. In (2009) 6<\/p>\n
SCC 757 V. Suvetha Vs. State, apex Court held that “Section 498-A IPC is a<\/p>\n
penal one it, thus, deserve strict consideration ordinarily, save and except where<\/p>\n
a contextual meaning is required to be given to constitute a penal provisions is<\/p>\n
required to be construed strictly.”\n<\/p>\n
      ” Word relative pressing within its perview a status such a status must be<\/p>\n
conferred by blood or marriage or adoption.”\n<\/p>\n
      ” In absence of any statutory definition the term “relative” must be<\/p>\n
assigned a meaning as a commonly understood.Ordinarily it would include<\/p>\n
Father, Mother, Husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, Sister, Nephew or<\/p>\n
Niece, Grandson or Grand daughter on an individual or a spouse of any person.<\/p>\n
Meaning of word ‘relative’ would depend upon nature of the statute.”<\/p>\n
      Interpretting the word ‘relative’ in Section 498-A IPC, apex Court held<\/p>\n
that it principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or by adoption.<\/p>\n
      It is nowhere stated by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that either Ram Sahai or his<\/p>\n
wife and two sons have instigated Anil to make a demand of dowry from his In-<\/p>\n
laws. Rameshwar Dayal in court question has specifically stated that Anil has<\/p>\n
never made any demand from them. There is also no charge for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons. There is also no direct<\/p>\n
evidence on record that accused-appellants have sprinklled Kerosene Oil on the<\/p>\n
body of the deceased and put to her on fire. Circumstancial evidence               of<\/p>\n
admissible nature on these two facts are also missing in the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      In the facts and circumstances of the case, mere saying that Anil was
\n                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
living as family member in hosue of Ram Sahai, he treats him as his guardian<\/p>\n
Ram Sahai get performed the marriage of Anil with the daughter of Rameshwar<\/p>\n
Dayal, all these cannot bring the accused Ram Sahai and his wife and two sons<\/p>\n
within the definition of relatives of the husband of the deceased to hold guilty<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC and the order passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court holding guilty to the accused-appellants for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
498-A and 304-B IPC and sentencing them cannot be said according to law and<\/p>\n
the same is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      Accused appellants were also charged to face trial under Section 4 of the<\/p>\n
Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides as<\/p>\n
follows :\n<\/p>\n
                    [4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person
\n      demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
\n      guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry,
\n      he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
\n      be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and
\n      with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
\n      reasons to be mentioned in the judgement, impose a sentence of
\n      imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]<\/p>\n
      This provision clearly shows that here relation ship as above with the<\/p>\n
husband of the deceased is not to be seen for convicting the accused persons<\/p>\n
under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. It is specific case of the P.W.1 Rameshwar<\/p>\n
Dayal that Anil (deceased) has never made any deamand of dowry from them<\/p>\n
after the marriage. It is said by him that once Ram Sahai, accused and his wife<\/p>\n
has made demand from him of Rs. 25,000\/- and of a Motorcycle and pressing
\n                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
their this demand they had left the deceased in his house. After 18 months when<\/p>\n
he paid them Rs. 5,000\/- cash, Electric Fan and a Box through Pradeep. She<\/p>\n
was brought by Pradeep at the house of Anil who was residing with Ram Sahai.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Again accused Pradeep came at his house and pressed for the rest amount and<\/p>\n
Motorcycle then he stated that he is not in the capacity to satisfy their demand at<\/p>\n
this time. Pradeep returned to his house and after 7 -8 days he was informed by<\/p>\n
Pradeep and Babloo along with there other unknown persons that his daughter is<\/p>\n
seriously ill. On this information when he went to the house of the accused Ram<\/p>\n
Sahai, he found her daughter’s dead body due to burn injuries and he was<\/p>\n
informed by the neighbourers that she was put on fire by the accused persons.<\/p>\n
Already said there is no direct or clear circumstancial evidence to hold guilty to<\/p>\n
the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC and they are also not<\/p>\n
charged for that offence. P.W.2 had also supported on oath version of the P.W.1<\/p>\n
regarding this demand of dowry on behalf of the appellants. It is also on the<\/p>\n
record that Anil was living with his wife at the house of Ram Sahai though in a<\/p>\n
seperate room. Deceased was brought at the same house after marriage and it is<\/p>\n
the case of P.W.1 that Ram Sahai was Malik of the marriage. It is also on record<\/p>\n
that Anil used to treat Ram Sahai as his guardian. Anil himself has stated in his<\/p>\n
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that articles received in the marriage were<\/p>\n
with Ram Sahai and his sons used to visit his In-laws house . Learned Trial<\/p>\n
Court after relying upon the evidence available on record found that this<\/p>\n
demand case by the accused-appellant is established on the record. No<\/p>\n
discrepancy, material contradiction, Unnaturality and improbaility in the<\/p>\n
statement of P.W.-1 and P.W. 2 has been pointed out on behalf of the appellants.<\/p>\n
This case was not developed on behalf of the prosecution later on. This is case
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
is there since very begining since the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellants argued that from the on oath statement<\/p>\n
of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and from the facts narrated in the FIR, it reveals that<\/p>\n
allegations of pressing the demand of dowry are against the accused Ram Sahai<\/p>\n
and his wife and his one son Pradeep but nowhere it is specifically mentioned<\/p>\n
that Ram Sahai’s other son Babloo has also pressed and made a demand either<\/p>\n
from the deceased or from her parents. Visiting by Babloo hosue of P.W. 1 is<\/p>\n
only said to inform about the illness of the deceased. At that time also he has<\/p>\n
pressed about such demand, it is not a case of the prosecution. After going<\/p>\n
through the record, learned AGA conceded the correctness of this fact that there<\/p>\n
is no clear evidence on record about involvement of accused Babloo in case of<\/p>\n
demand of dowry from the deceased or her parents. No overt act or instigation<\/p>\n
has been attributed to Babloo to hold him guilty for the offence under Section 4<\/p>\n
of the D.P.Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Pradeep has already died and orders of abating his appeal has already<\/p>\n
been passed.\n<\/p>\n
      From the above all discussions, it is clear that from the facts and evidence<\/p>\n
available on the record charge levelled against the accused Ram Sahai, Smt.<\/p>\n
Shiv Kali is fully established. They both were rightly convicted by the trial<\/p>\n
court for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellants prayed for lenient view in the matter.<\/p>\n
Seeing the heniousness and seriousness of the case and the role played by both<\/p>\n
the appellants in the case matter they doe not deserve for leniency in the<\/p>\n
sentence awarded to them by the trial court. Their sentence under Section 4 of<\/p>\n
the D.P.Act is to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
        Accordingly, Appeal is partly allowed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        Accused Babloo is acquitted from the charges levelled against him under<\/p>\n
Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. His bail bonds are<\/p>\n
hereby cancelled and the sureties are discharged.\n<\/p>\n
        The finding of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Ram<\/p>\n
Sahai, Smt. Shiv Kali for the offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC are<\/p>\n
hereby set aside and they are acquitted from these cases.<\/p>\n
        Sentence awarded to the accused appellants by the trial court to Ram<\/p>\n
Sahai and Shiv Kali for the offence under Section 4 of D.P.Act is hereby<\/p>\n
confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        Bail of the accused appellants Ram Sahai and Shiv Kali is hereby<\/p>\n
cancelled. They are not present today in the court. Record of the case with the<\/p>\n
copy of the judgement be sent to the trial court forthwith. The trial court will<\/p>\n
take all steps to procure the attendance of these two accused-appellants by<\/p>\n
issuing N.B.W. and other process according to law and after their appearance or<\/p>\n
production, they will be sent to jail to serve out the rest sentence awarded to<\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p>\n
17.06.2010
\nKaushal\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010 1 AFR RESERVED Court No. – 10 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 211 of 1996 Petitioner :- Ram Sahai & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Virendra Mohan,Amol Kumar,Tribhuban Narain Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,T.N. […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 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\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-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=\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-10T15:30:11+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-10T15:30:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3381,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-10T15:30:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 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":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 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\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-10T15:30:11+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-10T15:30:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010"},"wordCount":3381,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010","name":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-10T15:30:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-sahai-others-vs-state-of-u-p-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Sahai & Others vs State Of U.P. on 17 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\/84072","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=84072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}