{"id":88313,"date":"2007-05-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-23T17:09:22","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T11:39:22","slug":"state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 290 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. STATE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SATHYAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :23\/05\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                                 K. Thankappan, J.\n\n                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                                         Crl.A.No.   290 of  1999\n\n                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                               Dated this the 23rd day of  May, 2007\n\n\n                                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         State has assailed the judgment in S.C.No.211\/95 on the file of the Court of the<\/p>\n
Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Respondents 1 and 3 to 6   along with one Pradeep<\/p>\n
Kumar  were  charge-sheeted  for  the  offence  punishable   under   sections  143,  147,  148,<\/p>\n
323, 324  and  307 read with  section  149 IPC. The  prosecution  case  was  that    on 5-9-<\/p>\n
1994   at   about   10.30   A.M.   the   accused   persons   formed   themselves   into   an   unlawful<\/p>\n
assembly with the common object of murdering PW1 and in furtherance of the common<\/p>\n
intention they attacked and caused injuries to him.  To prove the case,  the prosecution<\/p>\n
examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P7.  MO1 and MO2 were also marked.<\/p>\n
After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.   They   denied   the   prosecution   allegation   and   stated   that   the   case   was   foisted<\/p>\n
against  them  due   to   political   enmity.   After  considering   the   entire   evidence,     the   trial<\/p>\n
court   found     that   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   establish   the   guilt   of   the   respondents<\/p>\n
beyond the shadow of doubt and  hence they were acquitted.<\/p>\n
         2.     The   prosecution   case   against   the   respondents     is   that   on   the   date   of   the<\/p>\n
incident when PW1 went to fetch an autorickshaw,   they prevented him, rounded him<\/p>\n
and shouted that they would finish him. It is also alleged that 1st  accused shouted “kill<\/p>\n
Crl.A.290\/99                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
him”, the 2nd accused stabbed him towards his neck and when he warded off<\/p>\n
the stab, the stab hit his upper part of the left hand inner side and due to the<\/p>\n
stab   the   muscle   was   cut   and   he   sustained   injuries.   On   hearing   his   cry,<\/p>\n
neighbours  came there. The respondents  mainly attacked  the nature of the<\/p>\n
injury.   According   to   them,   there   was   no   possibility   of   causing   any   such<\/p>\n
injury to PW1.   After considering the entire evidence,  the trial court by the<\/p>\n
impugned order acquitted the accused. Against the above finding this appeal<\/p>\n
is filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             3. This Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. PW1 who<\/p>\n
is the injured stated that on 5-9-94 at about 10.30 a.m. when he had gone to<\/p>\n
fetch   an   autorickshaw,   the   respondents   came   from   the   opposite   direction,<\/p>\n
prevented   him,   beated   with   hands   and   kicked   him   and   the   2nd  respondent<\/p>\n
stabbed  him towards his neck. He also stated that when he warded off the<\/p>\n
stab and then stab hit his upper part of the left hand inner side.  It is also the<\/p>\n
case of PW1 that there was a political clash before the incident between the<\/p>\n
RSS and Marxist.   PW4 who was the doctor stated that   he had examined<\/p>\n
PW1 who came with an allegation that he was stabbed with sword. He noted<\/p>\n
an injury with 20 c.m. Long curve wound over the dorsal aspect of left arm,<\/p>\n
cutting   the   muscle   exposing   the   humerus   and   radial   nerve.   He  also   noted<\/p>\n
Crl.A.290\/99                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
that the injury was a minor injury. He admitted that it was possible due to<\/p>\n
fall.   In   his   evidence   PW1   stated   that   he   fell   down   on   the   road   side.   The<\/p>\n
defence case is that PW1 had a simple injury and that was not sufficient to<\/p>\n
cause death and that the injury can  be possible by some other means also.<\/p>\n
The trial court after considering the evidence found that since there was no<\/p>\n
corroborating  evidence,  the   possibility  of  fall  could   not  be  ruled   out.  The<\/p>\n
trial   court   also   found   that   two   persons   who   was   with   PW1   were   not<\/p>\n
examined   and   as   such   about   the   actual   stab,   there   was   no   evidence   to<\/p>\n
corroborate the evidence   of PW1. The trial court further   found that even<\/p>\n
though some overt act of the 2nd respondent was deposed to by the witness,<\/p>\n
no   one   is   speaking   any   thing   about   the   role   of   the   remaining   accused.<\/p>\n
Hence, the trial court acquitted the respondents stating that the prosecution<\/p>\n
had failed    to establish  the guilt of the respondents  beyond the shadow  of<\/p>\n
doubt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           4.   The   prosecution   is   mainly   relied   on   the   evidence   of   PW1,   the<\/p>\n
injured,   PW2   and   PW3,     eye   witnesses.   According   to   PW1,   two   persons<\/p>\n
were   with     him,   but   they   were   not   examined.   There   is   no   corroborative<\/p>\n
evidence  of PW1.  The trial court after considering the evidence, found that<\/p>\n
there was some doubt in the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.A.290\/99                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
         4. Having considered the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
and   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   and   after   having   perused   the<\/p>\n
evidence, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial court does not<\/p>\n
require any interference by this Court. Hence,  the appeal fails and it stands<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                             K. Thankappan,<\/p>\n
                                                             Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\nmn.\n<\/p>\n
\n  K. Thankappan, J.\n<\/p>\n
 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No. 290 \/1999<\/p>\n
 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Judgment<\/p>\n
        23-5-2007<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 290 of 1999() 1. STATE … Petitioner Vs 1. SATHYAN … Respondent For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Respondent :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN Dated :23\/05\/2007 O R D E R K. Thankappan, J. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - 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\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-23T11:39:22+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T11:39:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":808,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\",\"name\":\"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T11:39:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - 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\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-23T11:39:22+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T11:39:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007"},"wordCount":808,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007","name":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T11:39:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-sathyan-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Sathyan on 23 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/88313","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=88313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}