{"id":89377,"date":"1999-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2"},"modified":"2019-01-31T12:59:23","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T07:29:23","slug":"kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","title":{"rendered":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1376 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nKISHORI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (NCT) OF DELHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 Supp(5) SCR 494<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Having been sentenced to death and ordered to-be hanged
\nby neck till death by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court of
\nDelhi, the appellant Kishori filed the Special Leave Petition seeking leave
\nof this Court to challenge the judgment of the High Court, By order dated
\n27.9.1999 this Court issued notice to the respondents and stayed execution
\nof the death penalty until the disposal of the case.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The fact situation of the case leading to the present proceeding may be
\nshortly stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
Immediately following the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then
\nPrime Minister, large scale rioting and arson took place in different parts
\nof Delhi on the 1st and 2nd November, 1984. Many persons, young, old and
\nchildren belonging to Sikh community were mercilessly killed. The incident
\nin the present case took place in Block No. 30, 32 and 34 of Trilok Puri on
\n1.11.1984. Amongst the large number of persons killed during the riots were
\nbarshan Sing aged 24 years, Aman Singh aged 22 years and Nirmal Singh aged
\n18 years, related as brothers and one Kirpal Singh brother of Mansa Singh.
\nMany houses were gutted and many persons were burnt alive in the area.
\nSubsequently on the intervention of the Police and other authorities
\nsurviving members of the families affected by me riots were removed to
\nrelief camps.\n<\/p>\n
On 17.11.84 me statement of Mansa Singh was recorded in me relief camp on
\nthe basis of which FIR No. 426\/84 relating to the incident in the present
\ncase was registered. On the basis of the FIR and the materials placed by
\nthe police, Sessions case No. 53\/95 was instituted and charges were framed
\nunder sections 148, 1-83, 302 and 397 read with section 149 IPC against
\nfour accused persons namely Kishori (appellant) Ram Pal, Saroj and Shabnam.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution examined Mansa Singh who disclosed the names of two more
\npersons as members of the unlawful assembly involved in the incident namely
\nBudh Prakash and Md. Abbas. They were joined as accused under section 319
\n(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure and were summoned to face trial along
\nwith other accused persons. On completion of the trial the Additional
\nSessions Judge, Delhi on appreciation of the evidence found Kishori, Dr.
\nBudh Prakash and Mohammad Abbas guilty of the offences charged and
\nconvicted each of them and sentenced each of them under section 148 IPC to
\nundergo Rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 2 years, under section 188 IPC to RI
\nfor 6 months, under section 397 read with section 149 IPC to RI for 10
\nyears and a fine of Rs. 20,000 in default to undergo RI for another two
\nyears, and under section 302 read with section 149 IPC to the sentence of
\ndeath and a fine of Rs, 30,000 in default to RI for 2 years more. All the
\nthree convicts were ordered to be hanged by neck till their death. All the
\nsubstantive sentences were made to run concurrently. All the convicts filed
\nappeals before the High Court challenging the judgment of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court on perusal of the records arid on consideration of the
\ncontentions raised on behalf of the parties allowed the appeals filed by
\nDr. B.P. Kashyap alias Dr. Lamboo and Mohammed Abbas, set aside the order
\nof conviction and sentence and acquitted them of the charges. The High
\nCourt confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the
\nappellant Kishori. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The crime in the present case qua appellant Kishori falls in the category
\nof rarest of rare cases and the sentence has to be commensurate with the
\ndegree\/gravity of the offence so that a required message is sent.\n<\/p>\n
In the above view of the matter, having regard to the evidence as above, in
\nour view the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court on
\nKishori son of Hoshiar Singh (appellant in Crl. A. No. 313\/98) deserves to
\nbe confirmed tinder Section 366 of the Code whereas the conviction and
\nsentence of appellants Dr. Budh Prakash Kashyap @ Dr. Lamboo son of Jayanti
\nPrashad (appellant in Crl. A. No, 455\/97) and Mohammed Abbas son of Munsif
\nAll (appellant in Crl. A.No.421\/97) deserves to set aside.\n<\/p>\n
In the result. Criminal Appeal No, 313\/98 being devoid of merits is
\ndismissed The murder reference No. 6\/97 under Section 366 of the Code is
\npartly accepted to the extent that the death sentence imposed on Kishori
\nson of Hoshiar Singh only is confirmed. Criminal Appeals No,421\/97 and
\n455\/97 are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on appellants Dr.
\nBudh Prakash Kashyap @ Dr. Lamboo son of Jayanti Prashad and Mohammad Abbas
\nson of Munsif Ali are set aside.”\n<\/p>\n
From the discussion in the judgment it appears, that there were two eye-
\nwitnesses to the occurrence, i.e. PW3 Mansa Singh and PW7 Devi Kaur wife of
\nMansa Singh. The High Court placed reliance on the ocular testimony of PW3
\nbut did not place reliance on the statement of PW7. Referring to the
\nevidence of PW3 the Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“The evidence of PW3 suggests that Kishori was one of the members of the
\nunlawful assembly which pulled out Darshan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Amar
\nSingh from House No. 32\/7, Trilok Puri on 1.1.1984 around 10 AM, It is
\nclearly stated that the members of this unlawful assembly killed aforesaid
\nthree sons of PW3. A categorical statement has been made by PW3 that
\nKishori present in court was Having a big pig cutting knife and was one of
\nthe members of the mob and that he cut the sons of PW3 It is pertinent to
\nnote that there is no cross-examination challenging the statement of PW3 to
\nthe effect that Kishori was living in block No. 31 and was having shop near
\nGurudwara on the main road of block no. 32. On the contrary, the suggestion
\ndenied by the witness is that he used to play cards at the shop of Kishori.
\nIt has been categorically stated that witness knew Kishori 2\/3 years before
\nthe riots and had opened a meat shop opposite Gurudwara in Khokha. This
\nwould suggest that Kishori was known to the witness much prior to the
\nincident and was having a meat shop opposite Gurudwara. Even in the
\nstatement dated 17.11.1984 under section 161 of the Code the witness has
\nattributed a specific overt act of killing his sons with big knife by
\nKishori as one of the members of the unlawful assembly. Thus, Kishori has
\nbeen attributed the act of killing sons of PW3 with big knife as the member
\nof unlawful assembly. There is no omission or contradiction proved on
\nrecord as regards the role of Kishori in the incident. As far as PW3 is
\nconcerned his statement u\/s 161 of the code, first in point of time was
\nrecorded on 17.11.1984 wherein Kishori has been not only specifically named
\nbut an overt act, as pointed out above, has been attributed to him as the
\nmember of the unlawful assembly. PW3 has in categorical terms stated that
\nwhen the incident took place he was in his house No. 32\/7, Trilok Puri
\nalong with his family members and that the mob of rioters pulled out his
\nsons Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Nirmal Singh from the house and killed
\nthem. The incident of killing the sons of PW3 by Kishori has taken place
\nafter the deceased were pulled out from the house by the mob. In our
\nopinion the principle laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
\nMahaveer Singh & Others<\/a> will not be applicable to the present case, in view
\nof the specific overt act on the part of Kishori, though no specific overt
\nact would be necessary when Section 149 IPC is taken aid of<\/p>\n
Thus, it will be seen that Kishori has been named as one of the members of
\nthe unlawful assembly carrying big knife and is stated to have cut the sons
\nof the witness, that Kishori is identified as he was having a meat shop in
\nthe area and known to the witness much prior to the occurrence whereas Budh
\nPrakash and Mohd. Abbas known to PW3 since 1976, are implicated in me crime
\nas the members of the unlawful assembly, identified by the witness only
\nduring his testimony and not earlier.”\n<\/p>\n
Though the teamed counsel for the appellant made an attempt to assail the
\nfinding of guilt concurrently recorded by the trial Court and the High
\nCourt, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the High
\nCourt, finding the appellant guilty of the charges particularly charge
\nunder section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
On the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant
\nstrenuously urged that the present case cannot be said to be a `rarest of
\nrare cases’ which calls for imposition of capital sentence imposed on the
\nappellant Elucidating his contention the learned counsel submitted that the
\nincident took place during a time when anger and passion of me public at
\nlarge had been aroused against members of the Sikh community giving rise to
\nwidespread riots in which people gave vent to their anger against members
\nof the said community. According to the learned counsel the incident was an
\noutcome of mob frenzy when normal human behaviour had taken a back-seat and
\nthe animal instinct in man ran high with the members of the frenzied mob.
\nIn such circumstances, submitted the learned counsel, the appellant
\ndeserves to be served with the lesser punishment of life imprisonment in
\nplace of sentence of death. The learned counsel for the State, on the other
\nhand urged that taking into account the brutal and merciless manner in
\nwhich the three young persons were dragged out of their house and hacked to
\ndeath in presence of their, family members, no leniency should be shown to
\nthe appellant and this Court should confirm the order imposing capital
\nsentence on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Some of the observations made by this Court in this connection are quoted
\nhereunder<\/p>\n
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.<\/a> [1973] 1 SCC 20<\/p>\n
“24 The policy of the law is giving a very wide discretion in the matter of
\npunishment to the Judge has its origin in the impossibility of laying down
\nstandards. Take, for example, the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust
\npunishable under Sec.409, Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment
\nprescribed for the offence is imprisonment for life. The minimum could be
\nas low as one day’s imprisonment and fine. It is obvious that if any
\nstandards were to be laid down with regard to several kinds of breaches of
\ntrust by the persons referred in that section, that would be an impossible
\ntask. All that could be reasonabl; done by the Legislature is to tell the
\nJudges that between the maximum and minimum prescribed for an offence, they
\nshould, on balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances as
\ndisclosed in the case, judicially, decide, what would be the appropriate
\nsentence. Take the other case of the offence of causing hurt. Broadly, that
\noffence is divided into two categories-simple hurt and grievous hurt.
\nSimple hurt is again sub-divided-simple hurt caused by a lethal Weapon is
\nmade punishable by a higher maximum sentence-Section 324. Where grievous
\nhurt is caused by a lethal weapon, it is punishable under Section 326 and
\nis a more aggravating form of causing grievous hurt than the one punishable
\nunder Section 325. Under Section 326 the maximum punishment is imprisonment
\nfor life and the minimum can be one day’s imprisonment and fine. Where a
\nperson by a lethal weapon causes a slight fracture of one of the un-
\nimportant bones of the human body, he would be as much punishable under
\nSection 326, Indian Penal Code as a person who with a knife scoops out the
\neyes of his victim. It will be absurd to say that both of them, because
\nthey are liable under the same section should be given the same punishment.
\nHence too, any attempt to lay down standards why in one case there should
\nbe more punishment and in the other less punishment would be an impossible
\ntask. What is thus true with regard to punishment imposed for other
\noffences of the Code is equally true in the case of murder punishable under
\nSection 302, Indian Penal Code. Two alternate “sentences are provided one
\nof which could be described as the maximum and the other minimum. The
\nchoice is between these two punishments and as in other cases the
\ndiscretion is left to the Judge to decide upon the punishment in the same
\nmanner as it does in the case of other offences, namely, balancing the
\naggravating-and mitigating circumstances. The framers of the Code attempted
\nto confine the offence of murder within as narrow limits as it was possible
\nfor them to do in the circumstances. All culpable homicides were not made
\npunishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicides were
\ndivided broadly into two classes : (1) culpable homicide amounting to
\nmurder and (2) culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Culpable homicide
\nwhich fell in the one or the other of the four strictly limited categories
\ndescribed in Section 300, Indian Penal Code amounted to murder unless it
\nfell in one of the five exceptions mentioned in that section, in which case
\nthe offence of murder was reduced to culpable homocide not amounting to
\nmurder. Any further refinement in the definition of murder was not
\npracticable and therefore, not attempted. The recent experience of the
\nRoyal Commission referred to above only emphasizes the extreme difficulty.
\nThe Commission frankly admitted that it was not possible to prescribe the
\nlesser punishment of imprisonment for life by redefinition of murder or by
\ndividing murder into degrees. It conceded that no formula was possible that
\nwould provide a reasonable criterion for the infinite variety of
\ncircumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime of murder. That
\nconclusion forced the Commission to the view that discretionary judgment On
\nthe facts of each case is the only way in which they can be equitably
\ndistinguished. See para 595 of the Commission’s Report.\n<\/p>\n
26. In India this onerous duty is cast upon Judges and for more than a
\ncentury the judges are carrying’ out this duty under the Indian Penal Code.
\nThe impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the
\nCriminal law as administered in India which invests the Judges with a very
\nwide discretion in the matter of fixing me degree of punishment. The
\ndiscretion in the matter of sentence is, as already pointed out, liable to
\nbe corrected by superior courts. Laying down of standards to the limited
\nextent possible as was done in me Model Judicial Code would not serve the
\npurpose. The exercise of judicial discretion on well-recognised principles
\nis, in the final analysis, the safest possible safeguards for the accused.
\nBachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1989] 2 SCC 684<\/p>\n
“209. There are numerous other circumstances justifying the passing of the
\nlighter sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation,
\n“We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such situations
\nsince they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating
\nsociety.” Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasised that the scope and
\nconcept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a
\nliberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the
\nsentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be
\nbloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them. Facts
\nand figures, albeit incomplete, furnished by the Union of India, show mat
\nin the past, courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme
\ninfrequency-a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they
\nhave always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing discretion
\nin so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern
\nthat courts, aided by the broad illustrative guidelines indicated by us,
\nwill discharge the onerous junction with evermore scrupulous care and
\nhumane concern, directed along me highroad of legislative policy outlined
\nin Section 354(3), viz., that for persons convicted of murder, life
\nimprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and
\nabiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to
\ntaking a life through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save
\nhi the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
\nforeclosed.\n<\/p>\n
During hearing of this case it was stated at the bar that the appellant
\nKishori was allegedly involved in several incidents which gave rise to
\nseven cases, four of which ended in his acquittal and in the remaining 3
\ncases he was convicted and sentenced to death. One such case was decided by
\nthis Court by me Judgment rendered on 1.12.98 in Crl. Appeal No. 147\/98
\nwith Crl. Appeal No. 148\/98 Kishori v. State of Delhi,<\/a> [1999] 1 SCC 148, In
\nthat case a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court took me view that on
\ntotality of circumstances that was not a case where the courts below should
\nhave imposed capital punishment; this Court reduced the sentence from
\ncapital punishment to life imprisonment. Considering the question as to the
\ncircumstances in which capital punishment can be imposed this Court took
\nnote of the decisions in-Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCC 470;
\nAjmer Singh v. State of Punjab, [1977] 1 SCC 659; State of U.P. v. Bhoora,<\/a>
\n[1998] 1 SCC 128; Hardayal v. State of U.P.<\/a> [ 1976] 2 SCC 812; Balraj v.
\nState of U.P.,<\/a> [1994] 4 SCC 29; Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab,<\/a> [1974] 4
\nSCC 278; Ediga Canamma v. State of A.P. [1974] 4 SCC 443; Shivaji Genu
\nMohite v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a> [1973] 3 SCC 219; Sarwan Singh v. State of
\nPunjab,<\/a> [1978] 4 SCC 111 and Shankar v. State of T.N.,<\/a> [1994] 4 SCC 478.
\nThis Court made the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
“The law is well settled by reason of the decisions of this Court as to the
\ncircumstances in which capital punishment can be imposed. It is held
\ntherein that capital punishment can be imposed in the rarest of the rare
\ncases and if there are any aggravating circumstances such as the accused
\nhaving any criminal record in the past, the manner of committing the crime,
\ndelay in imposing the sentence and so on. In the present case, the
\nprosecution case, as unfolded before the Court indicates that the riot in
\nDelhi broke out as a result of the death of Smt. Gandhi and her death
\nappears to be the symbol or web around which the violent emotions were
\nreleased. The death of Smt. Gandhi became a powerful symbolic image as a
\nresult of which the crowds were perpetrating violence in the height of
\nfrenzy. It is common experience that when people congregate in crowds,
\nnormal defences are lowered so that the crowd instinct assaults on the
\nsense of individuality or transcends one’s individual boundaries by
\noffering a release from inhibitions from personal doubts and anxiety. In
\nsuch a situation, one can well imagine that a member of such a group loses
\none’s self and the normal standard or sense of judgment and reality. The
\nprimary motivational factor in the assembly of a violent mob may result in
\nthe murder of several persons. Experts in criminology often express mat
\nwhen there is a collective action, as in the case of a mob, there is a
\ndiminished individual responsibility unless there are special circumstances
\nto indicate that a particular individual had acted with any
\npredetermination such as by use of a weapon not normally found. If,
\nhowever, a member of such a crowd picks up an article or a weapon which is
\nclose by and joints the mob, either on his own volition or at the
\ninstigation of the mob responding to the exhortation of the mob, playing no
\nrole of leadership, we may very well say that such a person did not intent
\nto commit all the acts which a mob would commit left to himself, but did so
\nunder the influence of collective fury. All the witnesses in this case
\nspeak that there was a mob attack resulting in the death of the three
\npersons. Though the appellant is stated to be responsible for inflicting
\ncertain knife injuries yet it is not clear whether those injuries
\nthemselves would have been sufficient to result in the death of the
\ndeceased. In the absence of any medical evidence in these cases, it has
\nbecome very difficult to draw any inference as to the injuries inflicted by
\nthe appellant We are conrious of the fact that when an accused person is
\ncharged with and offence not only under Section 302 IPC but also read with
\nSection 34 IPC or Section 149 IPC, the culpability of such an accused
\nresulting in the death of the person will not be less that of homocide
\namounting to murder. But what we are weighing now is whether such
\nculpability is of such a nature which should result in capital punishment
\nto the accused.\n<\/p>\n
It is no doubt true that the high ideals of the Constitution have to be
\nborne in mind, but when normal life breaks down and groups of people go
\nberserk losing balance of mind, the rationale that the ideals of the
\nConstitution should be upheld or followed, may not appeal to them in such
\ncircumstances, nor can we expect such loose heterogeneous group of persons
\nlike a mob to be alive to such high ideals. Therefore, to import the ideas
\nof idealism to a mob in such a situation may not be realistic. It is no
\ndoubt true that courts must be alive and in tune with the notions prevalent
\nin the society and punishment imposed upon an accused must be commensurate
\nwith the heinousness of the crime. We have elaborated earlier in the course
\nof our judgment as to how mob psychology works and it is very difficult to
\ngauge or assess what the notions of society are .in a given situation.
\nThere may be one section of society which may cry for a very deterrent
\nsentence while another section of society may exhort upon the court to be
\nlenient in the matter. To gauge such notions is to rely upon highly
\nslippery imponderables and, in this case, we cannot be definite about the
\nviews of society.\n<\/p>\n
We may notice that the acts attributed to the mob of which the appellant
\nwas a member at the relevant time cannot be stated to be a result of an
\norganized systematic activity leading to genocide. Perhaps, we can
\nvisualise that to the extent there was unlawful assembly and to the extent
\nthat the mob wanted to teach a sterr, lesson to the Sikhs, there was some
\norganisation; but in that design, that they did not consider that women and
\nchildren should be annihilated which is a redeeming feature. When an
\namorphous group of persons come together, it cannot be said that they
\nindulge in any systematic or organized activity. Such group may indulge in
\nactivities and may remain cohesive only for a temporary period and
\nthereafter would disintegrate. The acts of the mob of which the appellant
\nwas a member cannot be stated to be the result of an organisation or any
\ngroup indulging in violent activities formed with any purpose or scheme so
\nas to call an organised activity. In that sense, we may say that the acts
\nof the mob of which the appellant was a member was only the result of a
\ntemporary frenzy which we have discussed earlier. He did not play the role
\nof a leader of the mob as noticed earlier;”\n<\/p>\n
On perusal of the judgment of the trial court and the High Court and the
\nevidence of the eye witnesses we find that the incident giving rise to the
\npresent case took place in the circumstances similar to those in Kishori v.
\nState of Delhi<\/a> (supra). We are also satisfied that the discussion and the
\nobservations made by this Court in that case apply with equal force in the
\npresent case. We are in respectful agreement with the principles discussed
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
On the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is
\nnot a case which can be called `a rarest of rare cases’ which warrants
\nimposition of maximum punishment of capital sentence. Therefore, while
\nconfirming the conviction of the appellant on the charges framed against
\nhim we reduce the sentence from capital punishment to the life
\nimprisonment. With this modification the appeal stands dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 Bench: K.T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1376 of 1999 PETITIONER: KISHORI RESPONDENT: STATE (NCT) OF DELHI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS & D.P. MOHAPATRA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 Supp(5) SCR 494 The Judgment of the Court was […]<\/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-89377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - 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\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\" \/>\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=\"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T07:29:23+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T07:29:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\"},\"wordCount\":4049,\"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\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\",\"name\":\"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T07:29:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - 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\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T07:29:23+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999","datePublished":"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T07:29:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2"},"wordCount":4049,"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\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2","name":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T07:29:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishori-vs-state-nct-of-delhi-on-17-december-1999-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishori vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 17 December, 1999"}]},{"@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\/89377","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=89377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}