{"id":91972,"date":"2011-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2"},"modified":"2015-10-27T01:56:11","modified_gmt":"2015-10-26T20:26:11","slug":"jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                               Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.998 of 2009\n                                             With\n                               Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.854 of 2009\n                                          -------------\n            Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2009 &amp;\n            21.08.2009<\/pre>\n<p> respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in<br \/>\n            Sessions Trial No. 298 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>            In Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.998 of 2009\n<\/p>\n<p>            1. Narayan Yadav.\n<\/p>\n<p>            2. Binod Yadav.\n<\/p>\n<p>            3. Kuwar Yadav.\n<\/p>\n<pre>            4. Ashok Yadav.         ...      ...        ...   ...      ...Appellants\n                             -Versus-\n            The State of Jharkhand.        ...        ...   ...      ...Respondent\n\n           In Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.854 of 2009\n\n           1. Jageshwari Devi.\n           2. Bhatni Devi.\n           3. Sijni Devi.   ...      ...     ...      ...      ...Appellants\n                            -Versus-\n           The State of Jharkhand.        ...        ...   ...     ...Respondent\n                                         -------------\n           For the Appellants:     Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate.\n                                   Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate.\n\n           For the State:          Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.\n                                        -------------\n\n           C.A.V. on 23.06.2011        :        Pronounced on 25.07.2011\n                                     -------------\n                                PRESENT\n             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP KUMAR SINHA\n                                     -------------\nD.K.Sinha,J.        Both the appeals have been preferred arising out of common\n<\/pre>\n<p>            judgment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial<br \/>\n            No.298 of 2004 (Koderma P.S. Case No.214 of 2003) by which the<br \/>\n            appellants were convicted under Sections 147,323,307\/149 of the Indian<br \/>\n            Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for<br \/>\n            one year, six months and seven years respectively on each count. However,<br \/>\n            all the seven appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 380<br \/>\n            of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>            2.        Koderma P.S. Case No. 214 of 2003 was instituted on the basis of<br \/>\n            the written report of the informant-Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav with the<br \/>\n            allegation that on 15.06.2003 (Sunday) his neighbour agnates Narayan<br \/>\n            Yadav along with his nephew Binod Yadav, Kuwar Yadav and his son Ajay<br \/>\n            Yadav and Krishna Yadav were making preparation of liquor illegally on his<br \/>\n            land whereupon the informant opposed their illegal act, which resulted into<br \/>\n            scuffle and it was alleged that all the accused persons started beating him,<br \/>\n            his son Sukhdeo Yadav and his wife Bishni Devi. In the same sequence of<br \/>\n            assault the wife of Narayan Yadav, namely, Jageshwar Devi, wife of Binod<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Yadav, namely, Bhatni Devi and wife of Kuwar Yadav, namely, Sijni Devi<br \/>\nalso joined their hand with the assailants by holding &#8216;Tangi&#8217;, &#8216;Garasa&#8217; and<br \/>\n&#8216;Kudali&#8217; whereas other named accused were holding sticks and Danda. The<br \/>\nson of the informant sustained six injuries on his head alleged to be caused<br \/>\nby blows of Lathi, Farsa and Tangi and his condition became precarious.<br \/>\nThe victims were removed to Domchanch Police Outpost where the<br \/>\nstatement of the informant was recorded and for the better management of<br \/>\nthe injuries the son of the informant was referred to Sadar Hospital,<br \/>\nKoderma. The informant further gathered on 20.06.2007 after five days of<br \/>\nthe alleged occurrence that the accused persons had broken open the lock<br \/>\nof his house and removed all their belongings and had extended threat that<br \/>\nthe informant and other inmates of his house would be killed in case they<br \/>\nwould return back. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons. A<br \/>\nwritten report was presented on 20.06.2003 before the Domchanch Police<br \/>\nOutpost by the informant which was forwarded to Koderma Police Station<br \/>\non the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. The I.O. after investigation<br \/>\nsubmitted charge-sheet against the appellants and one Krishna Yadav<br \/>\nunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides other Sections. All the<br \/>\neight accused were put on trial including the appellants and on conclusion<br \/>\neach of them was convicted as referred to hereinbefore against substantive<br \/>\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.       Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. V.P.Singh, appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants at the outset submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place<br \/>\non 15.06.2003 at about 4 p.m. and the written report was presented on<br \/>\n20.06.2003 to which an F.I.R. was lodged but the same was received in the<br \/>\nCourt on 23.06.2003 without plausible explanation to such inordinate delay<br \/>\ncaused in lodging the F.I.R. and its receipt in the Court. It would be relevant<br \/>\nto mention that the informant- Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav, who was an<br \/>\nimportant witness to the alleged occurrence could not be examined in the<br \/>\nCourt because of his death during pendency of the trial. The conviction<br \/>\nrecorded against the accused appellants was based upon the evidence of<br \/>\nonly four witness viz. P.W. 1 Bisni Devi, P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Yadav, P.W. 3<br \/>\nRajshri Rai, (second) Investigating Officer and P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Murmu,<br \/>\nwho had examined the injuries of the victims. Mr. Singh further attracted the<br \/>\nattention that there were two injuries reports of Bisni Devi issued by P.W. 4<br \/>\nDr. Dinesh Murmu, who admitted in his evidence that the first injury report<br \/>\nExt. 1 was proved on behalf of the prosecution whereas another injury<br \/>\nreport was proved Ext. A by the defence bearing glaring contradictions. The<br \/>\ninjury report of Sukhdeo Yadav was proved Ext. B and the injury report of<br \/>\nthe informant Ramchandra Bhagat Yadav was proved Ext. C. Besides these<br \/>\ninjury reports, no other document could be proved on behalf of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>prosecution. It would be relevant to mention, learned Sr. Counsel added that<br \/>\neven the Fard Bayan or the F.I.R. could not be proved to substantiate the<br \/>\nallegation for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction of the<br \/>\nprosecution case and in that manner the appellants were highly prejudiced<br \/>\nfor not getting an opportunity to cross-examine the informant.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.       Advancing his argument the learned Sr. Counsel submitted on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants that no offence alleged under Section 307\/149 of<br \/>\nthe Indian Penal Code on the evidence adduced could be attracted against<br \/>\nany of the appellants in view of the fact that there was no intervening<br \/>\ncircumstance to prevent the appellants if at all they had intention to commit<br \/>\nmurder of Sukhdeo Yadav and that the injuries found on his person were<br \/>\ndangerous to his life and therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the<br \/>\ncharge under Sections 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, charge<br \/>\nunder Section 147 is not made out against any of the appellants. As per<br \/>\nprosecution story only four appellants viz. Narayan Yadav, Binod Yadav,<br \/>\nKuwar Yadav &amp; Ashok Yadav opposed the illegal act when the informant<br \/>\nand his son were manufacturing liquor illegally and there held scuffle which<br \/>\nwas joined by other three ladies appellants and therefore, it could safely be<br \/>\nsaid that the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.998\/2009 had not formed any<br \/>\nunlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code.<br \/>\nIt was the specific case that the four appellants were manufacturing liquor to<br \/>\nwhich the informant opposed and at the later stage they were joined by<br \/>\nother three ladies and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under<br \/>\nSection 147 I.P.C. cannot be sustained under law. As regards conviction of<br \/>\nthe appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sr.<br \/>\nCounsel submitted that when the appellants were convicted under the<br \/>\ngraver offence under Sections 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code, their<br \/>\nseparate conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code could not<br \/>\nbe sustained under law. The appellants Narayan Yadav, Binod Yadav,<br \/>\nKuwar Yadav and Ashok Yadav remained in custody for 2,1\/2 years<br \/>\nwhereas the lady appellants were released after detention in their custody<br \/>\nfor 22 months in total and now they were enjoying the privilege of ad interim<br \/>\nbail during pendency of their appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.       Finally, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that in the given<br \/>\nsituation when the offence under Section 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code<br \/>\ncould be proved against the appellants, Section 147 could not be attracted<br \/>\nand offence under Section 323 could not be made out against any of them,<br \/>\nit needed deep consideration of this Court for their acquittal or in alterantive<br \/>\nthey might be set at liberty after modifying the offence and the punishment<br \/>\nawarded to each of them for the period of imprisonment already undergone<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.         Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-<br \/>\nState, who submitted that the P.W. 1 Bisni Devi and Sukhdeo Yadav were<br \/>\nconsistent in their evidence about the complicity of all the appellants in<br \/>\nassaulting them causing a number of injuries who have been rightly<br \/>\nconvicted under Sections 307\/149 and allied Sections of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode. It was only because of good fortune that the life of the injured<br \/>\nSukhdeo Yadav, (P.W.2) could be saved in spite of injuries on his vital<br \/>\norgans by appropriate medical aid and management of his injuries. P.W. 1<br \/>\nBisni Devi also consistently testified the occurrence with the participation of<br \/>\nthe appellants in such assault and the Trial Court was justified in holding the<br \/>\nappellants guilty under Section 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code which<br \/>\nneeded no interference in appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.         Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,<br \/>\nargument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find substance in the<br \/>\nargument that there was no intervening circumstance available to prevent<br \/>\nthe appellants had there been their intention to commit murder of P.W. 2<br \/>\nSukhdeo Yadav, who had out numbered him and at best, in view of the<br \/>\ninjuries found on the person of Sukhdeo Yadav, found to be caused by hard<br \/>\nand blunt object total 7 in number with the injuries No.1,2 &amp; 3 laceration in<br \/>\nnature on the right and back portion of skull and lacerated wound on the left<br \/>\nside of occipital region 1\/2 cm x 1\/3 cm x scalp deep and lacerated wound<br \/>\non upper lip 1.5 cm x1\/4 cm x skin deep besides other superficial injuries, to<br \/>\nmy view the aforesaid injuries found on the person of Sukhdeo Yadav,<br \/>\ncannot be put in the category of simple injury but grievous in nature, an<br \/>\noffence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code wherein sentence has<br \/>\nbeen prescribed which can be extended up-to 7 years and fine. Admittedly,<br \/>\nthe parties were agnates and the occurrence arose on the disputed land<br \/>\nwhich resulted into scuffle and I have held that there was no intention of the<br \/>\nappellants to commit murder of Sukhdeo Yadav. I further observe that the<br \/>\nstatements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure were not found to be put in right way and that general<br \/>\nand omnibus allegations were put to each of the appellants against the<br \/>\nsettled requirement of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and<br \/>\nfor that the appellants have been highly prejudiced for not being confronted<br \/>\nwith incriminating evidence appearing against each of them during course of<br \/>\ntrial so as to accord an opportunity to each of them to explain, as such they<br \/>\nwere prejudiced. But the facts cannot be ignored in the backdrop that the<br \/>\nprosecution proved the injuries on the persons of the victims, amongst them<br \/>\nare the injured witness P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. The cummulative effect of the<br \/>\nentire facts and circumstances indicates that a lenient view may be taken<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>against     the   appellants   while considering appeal. In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances their conviction under Section 307\/149 is modified into one<br \/>\nunder Section 325\/34 of the Indian Penal Code against each of the<br \/>\nappellants. I further observe that in the facts and circumstances no offence<br \/>\nis made out under Section 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against<br \/>\nthe appellants for the reasons discussed hereinbefore, accordingly, each of<br \/>\nthem is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already<br \/>\nundergone by them with the fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default of payment<br \/>\neach of the appellants shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for<br \/>\ntwo months.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.         With such modification in conviction and sentence this appeal is<br \/>\ndismissed with regard to Sessions Trial No.298 of 2004 arising out of<br \/>\nKoderma P.S. Case No.294 of 2003 with the direction that the fine amount<br \/>\nmust be deposited within two months of the receipt of the communication of<br \/>\nthis judgment in the trial court below. Let the appellants of Criminal Appeal<br \/>\n(S.J.)No.998 of 2009 be released forthwith on their deposition of fine.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.         Both the appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                          [D.K.Sinha,J.]<br \/>\n     Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\n     Dated the________7. 2011<br \/>\n     P.K.S.\/N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 Cr.Appeal (S.J.) No.998 of 2009 With Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.854 of 2009 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2009 &amp; 21.08.2009 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 298 of 2004. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-26T20:26:11+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T20:26:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1858,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T20:26:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-26T20:26:11+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T20:26:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2"},"wordCount":1858,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2","name":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T20:26:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jageshwari-devi-ors-vs-state-of-jharkand-on-25-july-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jageshwari Devi &amp; Ors vs State Of Jharkand on 25 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/91972","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=91972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}