{"id":92206,"date":"2010-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-30T01:55:03","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T20:25:03","slug":"sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1465 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SIVAN, S\/O. PONNAYYAN, AGED 29 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :31\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n                       ***********************\n                   Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006\n                   *****************************\n               Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
     i)     Is the circumstance leading to the allegation<\/p>\n
     of patricide against the appellant established by<\/p>\n
     satisfactory evidence?\n<\/p>\n
     ii)    Can the circumstances established lead a<\/p>\n
     prudent mind to a safe conclusion of guilt against<\/p>\n
     the appellant?\n<\/p>\n
     iii) Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt?<\/p>\n
      iv) Did the court below commit the error of<\/p>\n
      importing extraneous information, which was<\/p>\n
      not legally placed before the court in the course<\/p>\n
      of trial, while attempting to adjudicate the<\/p>\n
      guilt of the appellant?\n<\/p>\n
     These are the questions raised by Ms.V.Shylaja, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant in her attempt to assail the impugned<\/p>\n
verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence against the appellant.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       2<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. The appellant was the sole accused who faced<\/p>\n
indictment.    The crux of the charge against him is that the<\/p>\n
accused on the night of 4\/9\/2002 at about 10.45 p.m.caused the<\/p>\n
death of his father by ligature strangulation with MO.2 towel in<\/p>\n
the workshop where PW3 was working as a mechanic. The<\/p>\n
alleged motive is the desperate yearning of the appellant to<\/p>\n
somehow get his marriage, which was scheduled to take place on<\/p>\n
8\/9\/2002, postponed.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The investigation into this crime commenced on the basis<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1(a)F.I.R. registered on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I.S. lodged<\/p>\n
by PW1, another son of the deceased, at 7.15 a.m. on 5\/9\/2002.<\/p>\n
The crime was registered under the caption “unnatural death”<\/p>\n
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, it<\/p>\n
was PW13, who filed the final report\/charge sheet against the<\/p>\n
appellant alleging the commission of the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 302 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Consequent to committal of the case to the Sessions<\/p>\n
Court, cognizance was taken by the Sessions Court.            The<\/p>\n
accused denied the offence alleged against him and thereupon<\/p>\n
the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 15 and proved Exts.P1 to<\/p>\n
P12. MOs.1 to 17 were also marked. The accused took up a<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      3<\/span><\/p>\n
defence of total denial. According to him, he had nothing to do<\/p>\n
with the unfortunate death of his father. No defence evidence<\/p>\n
was adduced – oral or documentary.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The learned Sessions Judge, on an anxious consideration<\/p>\n
of all the relevant inputs,    came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the<\/p>\n
appellant. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the<\/p>\n
impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence.         The<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed on the appellant.<\/p>\n
      6. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
Ms.V.Shylaja and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Noble<\/p>\n
Mathew have advanced their arguments.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the<\/p>\n
impugned verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence on the four<\/p>\n
grounds referred to already in paragraph 1 of this judgment.<\/p>\n
      8. An appellate judgment is and must be read in<\/p>\n
continuation of the judgment of the trial court. The trial court<\/p>\n
has adverted to all the relevant pieces of oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment,<\/p>\n
the trial court has also referred to all matters including charge<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       4<\/span><\/p>\n
levelled against the accused as also the examination of the<\/p>\n
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is not necessary, in these<\/p>\n
circumstances, for us to attempt to re-narrate such pieces of<\/p>\n
evidence and matters that were placed before the court below.<\/p>\n
Suffice it to say that the learned counsel for the appellant and<\/p>\n
the learned Public Prosecutor have taken us meticulously<\/p>\n
through the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 15 and the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, Exts.P1 to P12. Reference to Mos.1 to 17 have also<\/p>\n
been made.      Our attention has also been drawn to the final<\/p>\n
report filed by the police, the charge framed by the court as also<\/p>\n
the answers given by the accused in the course of 313<\/p>\n
examination .\n<\/p>\n
      9. We must at the outset note that this is a case where the<\/p>\n
indictment rests solely on circumstantial evidence.           The<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to adduce any direct evidence to<\/p>\n
implicate the appellant herein in the trial. They chose to rely on<\/p>\n
certain circumstances, which according to them reveal the<\/p>\n
complicity of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      10. It is unnecessary to refer to the specific precedents. It<\/p>\n
is trite beyond controversy that in a case resting solely on<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, the burden is heavy on the shoulders of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       5<\/span><\/p>\n
the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a<\/p>\n
case of circumstantial evidence, the       circumstances must be<\/p>\n
established by cogent and satisfactory evidence.               Such<\/p>\n
circumstances     must    be strong     links  in  the    chain  of<\/p>\n
circumstances.     Together the links must constitute a strong<\/p>\n
chain which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. Such<\/p>\n
chain of circumstances must effectively rule out any possible<\/p>\n
hypothesis of innocence of the accused. Then and only then can<\/p>\n
an accused be found to be guilty of such indictment in a criminal<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      11. It is not the number of links that matters. It is the<\/p>\n
conclusiveness of the inference on the basis of the links in the<\/p>\n
chain, that is of crucial significance. Each of such links may<\/p>\n
throw open several possibilities and probabilities but what the<\/p>\n
court has to consider is the possibilities and probabilities thrown<\/p>\n
open after the links form a      strong chain.    The question is<\/p>\n
whether the links together – we mean, the chain, proves the<\/p>\n
indictment against the accused or whether it leaves behind scope<\/p>\n
for any reasonable doubt.    Each link by itself may throw open<\/p>\n
several possibilities and probabilities. Benefit of doubt is not to<\/p>\n
be conceded on the basis of such possibilities and probabilities.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006        6<\/span><\/p>\n
      12. Having reminded ourselves of the law relating to<\/p>\n
proof of an indictment on the basis of circumstantial evidence,<\/p>\n
we shall    now proceed to narrate the circumstances which,<\/p>\n
according to the learned Prosecutor Shri Noble Mathew, are<\/p>\n
made available before the court.     We do include some of the<\/p>\n
circumstances relied on by him, though there is no material to<\/p>\n
assume     that  the    prosecution had   relied on  any  such<\/p>\n
circumstances before the court below.            Some of those<\/p>\n
circumstances have not been accepted by the court below also.<\/p>\n
The circumstances are :\n<\/p>\n
      1)Motive, which the appellant allegedly entertained<\/p>\n
      against his father.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2)The fact that the deceased – the father of the<\/p>\n
      appellant    had    died   on  account   of ligature<\/p>\n
      strangulation on the night of 4\/9\/2002.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      3)That the death of the deceased occurred in the<\/p>\n
      workshop where PW3 is a mechanic and the body of<\/p>\n
      the deceased was found near that workshop – a little<\/p>\n
      (100 – 150 metres.) away from the workshop.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      4) That the appellant and the deceased – father and<\/p>\n
      son, were seen together by PW1 and PW14 at<\/p>\n
      about 5 p.m. on that day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5)PW4, a Police Constable on night patrol duty had<\/p>\n
      allegedly seen the appellant at about 1.30 a.m. on<\/p>\n
      5\/9\/2002 on the public road under circumstances<\/p>\n
      which generated dissatisfaction in the mind of PW4.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      6.   There was grease (black) on the clothes, MO.1<\/p>\n
      series, which the accused was wearing on that<\/p>\n
      night.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7. The accused, the eldest son of the deceased, did<\/p>\n
      not participate enthusiastically in the last rites and<\/p>\n
      rituals which had to be performed consequent to the<\/p>\n
      death of the deceased, his father.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      13. We shall now proceed to consider the              seven<\/p>\n
circumstances on which the prosecution now wants to place<\/p>\n
reliance on.       We shall initially consider whether these<\/p>\n
circumstances have been established satisfactorily.      We shall<\/p>\n
later consider whether the proved circumstances are sufficient<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       8<\/span><\/p>\n
to generate a safe satisfaction about the guilt of the appellant in<\/p>\n
the mind of the court.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Coming to the first circumstance, the appellant is the<\/p>\n
son of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 60 years.<\/p>\n
The appellant was aged about 25 years. The mother of the<\/p>\n
appellant, i.e. wife of the deceased had left the deceased and her<\/p>\n
children and had allegedly gone away about 15 years back. PW1<\/p>\n
is the younger brother of the appellant. The deceased had only<\/p>\n
those two male children. PW1 had already got married. He<\/p>\n
along with his wife, PW2 – they at the relevant time are aged<\/p>\n
about 23 years and 20 years and were residing together in a<\/p>\n
separate house. The younger brother appears to have married<\/p>\n
earlier than the appellant herein.   After the marriage of PWs.1<\/p>\n
and 2, it appears that the deceased used to sleep in the house of<\/p>\n
his sister and the appellant used to sleep in the shop where he<\/p>\n
was working, leaving PWs. 1 and 2 in the house. The marriage<\/p>\n
of the appellant had been fixed.          It was to take place on<\/p>\n
8\/9\/2002.    The appellant along with the deceased was going<\/p>\n
round to invite people for the wedding. Even on 4\/9\/2002, the<\/p>\n
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the very case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution is that the appellant along with the deceased had<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006     9<\/span><\/p>\n
gone to invite the paternal grand-father of the appellant for the<\/p>\n
wedding. There is practically no other or better evidence to<\/p>\n
indicate or even remotely suggest any strain in the relationship<\/p>\n
between the accused and the deceased. The prosecution sets up<\/p>\n
a case that the appellant was hard pressed for money. He was<\/p>\n
not able to find\/raise requisite resources necessary for his<\/p>\n
marriage, which was to take place on 8\/9\/2002. PWs.1 and 2<\/p>\n
have broadly indicated the attempts of the appellant to raise<\/p>\n
money for performance of his marriage. According to them, he<\/p>\n
was hard pressed for money.      They have no case that      the<\/p>\n
appellant had discussed the shortage of cash for the marriage<\/p>\n
with them. They have no case that they were         in any way<\/p>\n
involved in the attempt to raise the amount for the marriage of<\/p>\n
the appellant which was scheduled to take place on 8\/9\/2002.<\/p>\n
However, it was the general impression of PWs.1 and 2 that the<\/p>\n
gold ornaments have not been purchased and necessary funds<\/p>\n
have not been raised for the solemnisation of marriage of the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      15. From these circumstances, the prosecution wants the<\/p>\n
court to assume that there was motive for the appellant to do<\/p>\n
away with his father and the ingenious explanation is that the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       10<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant, who had not obtained sufficient money to conduct his<\/p>\n
marriage on 8\/9\/2002, wanted a postponement of his marriage.<\/p>\n
To facilitate that – such postponement, the only method which he<\/p>\n
could devise was to do away with his father so that the death of<\/p>\n
his father would afford sufficient reason\/justification for the<\/p>\n
postponement of the marriage.\n<\/p>\n
      16. To say the least, the theory is bizarre. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submits that the imagination of the<\/p>\n
investigator is running wild. There is absolutely no evidence<\/p>\n
even to remotely indicate that the appellant, whose younger<\/p>\n
brother had already got married, had made any attempt to get<\/p>\n
the marriage postponed. There is no case for any witness that<\/p>\n
the appellant had entertained such a secret desire. At any rate,<\/p>\n
the desire, if any, had not been manifested and no one has a case<\/p>\n
that there was any indication of such desire of the appellant to<\/p>\n
get his own marriage postponed. The court below appears to<\/p>\n
have    thought that the working of a human mind may be<\/p>\n
inscrutable and that if really the accused was hard pressed for<\/p>\n
money and he faced the prospect of humiliation before his<\/p>\n
prospective bride and people of the locality he may have<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      11<\/span><\/p>\n
entertained the desire to do away with his father to enable him<\/p>\n
to make use of that circumstance to get his marriage postponed.<\/p>\n
      17. Except surmises and     conjectures, we find absolutely<\/p>\n
no tangible evidence which can suggest that the appellant did<\/p>\n
entertain such a motive or desire. The appellant is the son of<\/p>\n
the deceased.       Going by all available indications, there is<\/p>\n
nothing to even remotely indicate that he entertained any<\/p>\n
motive\/animus against his father or that he was planning to get<\/p>\n
his marriage postponed for some reason. The theory that he was<\/p>\n
waiting to invent reasons to justify postponement of his marriage<\/p>\n
and he found that death of his father would be a convincing<\/p>\n
reason to postpone his marriage, though suggested by the<\/p>\n
prosecution,has no legs to stand on.        Even though,      this<\/p>\n
circumstance has been heavily relied on by the prosecution and<\/p>\n
accepted by the learned Judge to a certain extent, we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that this circumstance has not been proved satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
There is not a semblance of evidence from relative witnesses,<\/p>\n
PWs.1 and 2 or any other to suggest that the accused did want to<\/p>\n
get his marriage postponed to any later date to facilitate raising<\/p>\n
of money to meet expenses of his marriage. The accused, it<\/p>\n
appears, had taken a stand in the course of trial that his<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      12<\/span><\/p>\n
marriage had not been fixed also. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2<\/p>\n
is sufficient to conclude that the marriage of the appellant was<\/p>\n
to take place on 8\/9\/2002. But we hold that there is absolutely<\/p>\n
nothing to indicate that the appellant wanted his marriage to be<\/p>\n
postponed and did ever entertain a desire to (and contemplate)<\/p>\n
do away his father to facilitate postponement of the marriage.<\/p>\n
This circumstance is not proved satisfactorily at all.<\/p>\n
      18.   The     second  circumstance     stands    established<\/p>\n
convincingly. The inquest report prepared by PW15 to which<\/p>\n
PW5 is an attester as also the evidence of PW11, the Doctor who<\/p>\n
conducted postmortem examination and issued Ext.P6 and<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 postmortem certificates as also the oral evidence of PW12<\/p>\n
and Ext.P7 report on the basis of which PW11 issued Ext.P8 do<\/p>\n
all clearly show that the deceased had died on account of<\/p>\n
ligature strangulation on the night of 4\/9\/2002. Not a semblance<\/p>\n
of doubt is left in our mind about this circumstance. We reckon<\/p>\n
this circumstance as proved satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
      19. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
that the death of the deceased must have taken place in the<\/p>\n
workshop of PW3 and the body of the deceased must have been<\/p>\n
removed from the workshop to the place where it was found<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006     13<\/span><\/p>\n
lying – at a distance of about 100-150 metres away from the<\/p>\n
workshop by someone. We have evidence to indicate that some<\/p>\n
incident had taken place at the workshop where PW3 was a<\/p>\n
mechanic. PW3 was not available in the workshop during that<\/p>\n
night. Evidence available from the scene mahazar(Ext.P4) as<\/p>\n
also the inquest report(Ext.P3) suggest that the workshop was<\/p>\n
not kept under lock and key during the night. It appears to be a<\/p>\n
small workshop activity where three wheelers were repaired. It<\/p>\n
was a thatched shed and the evidence unmistakably conveys that<\/p>\n
access into that workshop was available for any one during the<\/p>\n
night.\n<\/p>\n
      20. That a violent incident had taken place inside the said<\/p>\n
workshop is eloquently revealed from the factual perceptions<\/p>\n
made by the Investigating Officer at the scene of the crime.<\/p>\n
Blood marks were there inside the workshop. The dead body<\/p>\n
was found at a place near the workshop. Though there are no<\/p>\n
significant external bleeding injuries on the person of the<\/p>\n
deceased, there is evidence to show that death occurred due to<\/p>\n
ligature strangulation.   The possibility of the incident having<\/p>\n
taken place inside the workshop is certainly indicated and<\/p>\n
suggested by the presence of the blood marks at the scene. Of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       14<\/span><\/p>\n
course it is true that we are unable to find any specific<\/p>\n
explanation as to why the body was carried by the miscreant<\/p>\n
(whoever he be) from the workshop to a place outside the<\/p>\n
workshop if as a matter of fact the murder had taken place inside<\/p>\n
the workshop. The court below had adverted to that aspect. The<\/p>\n
court was not able to find any positive circumstances to explain<\/p>\n
the presence of the dead body at a place away from the<\/p>\n
workshop within which indications suggest that the murder must<\/p>\n
have taken place.       The identification of the precise spot of<\/p>\n
occurrence does not appear to be very crucial while considering<\/p>\n
this third circumstance relied on by the prosecution. We are<\/p>\n
satisfied that the conclusion is safe that the deceased must have<\/p>\n
suffered death at or near the workshop.         We are unable to<\/p>\n
precisely locate whether the murder was caused inside the<\/p>\n
workshop and whether the incident had commenced inside the<\/p>\n
workshop, but had continued till the place where the dead body<\/p>\n
was found. It is also impossible to precisely ascertain whether<\/p>\n
the body was removed to the place where it was found by the<\/p>\n
miscreants whoever he be from the workshop. Suffice it to say<\/p>\n
that we are satisfied that the death of the deceased on account of<\/p>\n
ligature strangulation must have taken place at\/near the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      15<\/span><\/p>\n
workshop\/the place where the dead body was found. This third<\/p>\n
circumstance is answered in favour of the prosecution to the<\/p>\n
above extent.\n<\/p>\n
      21. The fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution<\/p>\n
is that the appellant and the deceased were seen together. PWs<\/p>\n
1 and 14 deposed that they had seen the appellant and the<\/p>\n
deceased together at about 5 p.m on that evening. It is the<\/p>\n
undisputed case that the deceased along with the appellant had<\/p>\n
gone to the house of the grandfather of the appellant to extend<\/p>\n
invitation for the wedding. There is nothing to show that the<\/p>\n
grandfather is alive or that he had met the accused and the<\/p>\n
deceased on that day. Seeing the father and son together at 5<\/p>\n
p.m, when death must have taken place, according to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, late in the night at about 10.45 p.m, cannot<\/p>\n
certainly be reckoned as a very important or crucial<\/p>\n
circumstance. Moreover the evidence shows that the deceased<\/p>\n
and the appellant had returned from the house of the<\/p>\n
grandfather and thereafter the appellant had gone to the house<\/p>\n
of PW1 and PW2 at about 10 p.m as stated by PW1 and PW2. It<\/p>\n
is the common case that the deceased sleeps at the house of his<\/p>\n
sister and the appellant sleeps at his place of work. Even though<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       16<\/span><\/p>\n
they were seen together at 5 p.m, at 10 p.m when PW1 and PW2<\/p>\n
saw the appellant, the deceased was not available with him.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution the deceased was alive at that time.<\/p>\n
Moreover, they were not residing together at any place and in<\/p>\n
these circumstances the last seen theory cannot have any direct<\/p>\n
application to the facts of this case. That the appellant and the<\/p>\n
deceased were found together at about 5 p.m in the evening by<\/p>\n
PWs 1 and 14 cannot, in any view of the matter, be reckoned as a<\/p>\n
relevant incriminating circumstance, in the facts of this case<\/p>\n
where death had taken place admittedly after 10 p.m.         This<\/p>\n
circumstance of PWs 1 and 14 having seen the appellant and the<\/p>\n
deceased together at about 5 p.m is accepted. But we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the value of this circumstance as an incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstance against the accused is not much.<\/p>\n
      22. The fifth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
that PW4, a police constable on night patrol duty, had seen the<\/p>\n
appellant on the public road at about 1.30 a.m on 05.09.2002<\/p>\n
(the night of 04.09.2002). According to the prosecution by the<\/p>\n
time PW4 saw the appellant at that odd hour, the murder of the<\/p>\n
deceased must already have taken place.         Except the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PW4, there is nothing tangible to support the version<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      17<\/span><\/p>\n
of PW4. According to PW4, another police constable was also<\/p>\n
available with him on duty when he intercepted the appellant on<\/p>\n
suspicion. The other police constable has not been examined. No<\/p>\n
test identification parade has been conducted.      Though it is<\/p>\n
asserted that PW4 had made a record (noting) of the details of<\/p>\n
the appellant in a book\/register maintained by him, such register<\/p>\n
is not placed before court at all. In these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
court below did not believe PW4 and did not choose to accept<\/p>\n
and act upon his evidence.       If this evidence were proved,<\/p>\n
certainly that would have been a relevant circumstance though<\/p>\n
the value to be attached to that circumstance as a circumstance<\/p>\n
incriminating the appellant for the offence of murder will have to<\/p>\n
be considered in depth.    But the fact remains that the court<\/p>\n
below chose not to accept and act upon the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PW4. The only question now is whether we must take a different<\/p>\n
view on the question. We are also of the opinion that the trial<\/p>\n
court, which had the advantage of seeing the witness (PW4)<\/p>\n
perform in the witness stand, having chosen not to accept and<\/p>\n
act upon his evidence, we need not also accept and act upon the<\/p>\n
oral evidence of PW4. The uncorroborated testimony of PW4,<\/p>\n
which could easily have been corroborated by ocular and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006     18<\/span><\/p>\n
documentary evidence, cannot be accepted by us at this<\/p>\n
appellate stage, the court below having chosen not to accept the<\/p>\n
same. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that we<\/p>\n
need not reverse this finding of the court below.            This<\/p>\n
circumstance thus must be held to be not established.<\/p>\n
      23. The prosecution relies on the sixth circumstance that<\/p>\n
there was some black (grease) mark on the clothes M.O1 series<\/p>\n
of the appellant. There was the evidence of PW4 also that when<\/p>\n
he saw the appellant on that night at about 1.30 a.m, there were<\/p>\n
some black marks on his pants. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2<\/p>\n
suggest that at the time when the appellant went to the house of<\/p>\n
PW1 after coming to know of the death of his father, he was<\/p>\n
wearing M.O1 series and there were black (grease) marks on his<\/p>\n
pants. Those were washed by PW2 and after washing, there is<\/p>\n
no indication of any black (grease) marks on the pants worn by<\/p>\n
the appellant, which is one of the items in M.O1 series.<\/p>\n
According to PW2, these clothes were left by the appellant when<\/p>\n
he went to the house of PW1 in connection with performance of<\/p>\n
last rites of the deceased. At that point of time, it appears, the<\/p>\n
needle of suspicion was not pointed at the appellant.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      19<\/span><\/p>\n
      24. M.O1 series, when it was seized after the incident, did<\/p>\n
not admittedly have any black (grease) marks on it. It was not<\/p>\n
sent to the expert to ascertain whether there was any black<\/p>\n
(grease) marks on it. It is the case of the prosecution that after<\/p>\n
washing, there was no black (grease) marks on M.O1 series.<\/p>\n
We can safely accept the evidence of PW2 to come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that there were black (grease) marks on the clothes<\/p>\n
of the appellant before she washed them.\n<\/p>\n
      25. What is the importance of this circumstance? This has<\/p>\n
now got to be considered. The scene of the crime is described in<\/p>\n
detail in the scene mahazar and the inquest report.          It is<\/p>\n
significant to note that there is nothing to indicate that there<\/p>\n
were any grease present\/available at the workshop.        Merely<\/p>\n
because it was a workshop, significance cannot be attached to<\/p>\n
the presence of black (grease) marks on the clothes of the<\/p>\n
appellant. We have already noted that except that there were<\/p>\n
black marks, there is nothing to authentically conclude that such<\/p>\n
black marks were caused by grease. Moreover there is nothing<\/p>\n
to indicate that such grease was available in the workshop.<\/p>\n
      26. It will not be inapposite in this context to note that<\/p>\n
even the clothes of the deceased did not have any black (grease)<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       20<\/span><\/p>\n
marks. If it is the case of the prosecution that black (grease)<\/p>\n
marks happened to be present on the clothes of the accused,<\/p>\n
because he was involved in an incident in the workshop, by the<\/p>\n
same reason and logic the absence of black (grease) marks on<\/p>\n
the clothes of the deceased is crucial. Admittedly there were no<\/p>\n
black (grease) marks on the clothes (M.Os 14 and 15) worn by<\/p>\n
the deceased which are described in the inquest report. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, even though we find no reason to disbelieve the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW2 about the presence of black (grease) marks on<\/p>\n
his clothes M.O1 series, we are unable to reckon the same as a<\/p>\n
vital or crucial circumstance to suggest that the appellant was<\/p>\n
involved in the incident which took place inside the workshop.<\/p>\n
This sixth circumstance, though established, cannot hence be<\/p>\n
reckoned as a crucial or vital circumstance against the appellant.<\/p>\n
      27. The court below appears to have reckoned another<\/p>\n
circumstance as important.       The court below felt that this<\/p>\n
circumstance would be admissible under Section 8 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act. The court below came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
appellant, the elder son of the deceased, had not taken part in<\/p>\n
the funeral rites\/rituals of the deceased. The court below came<\/p>\n
to the conclusion that the appellant being the elder son must<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006     21<\/span><\/p>\n
normally have performed those rites.       The court below also<\/p>\n
appears to have concluded that the mother of the appellant did<\/p>\n
not permit him to perform the last rites. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant argues that it is impossible to ascertain how and<\/p>\n
where from, the court below gathered this information. We have<\/p>\n
been taken through the entire evidence. We find that no witness<\/p>\n
had spoken on this aspect at all. There is nothing in evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the mother of the appellant, the estranged wife of the<\/p>\n
deceased, had objected to the appellant, the elder son of the<\/p>\n
deceased, to perform the last rites. We have also tried to scan<\/p>\n
through the entire evidence. We have been taken through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 meticulously.         The mother of the<\/p>\n
appellant, ie. the estranged wife of the deceased has not been<\/p>\n
examined as a witness before court. We are unable to locate the<\/p>\n
precise source of this information for the court below. We<\/p>\n
requested the learned Public Prosecutor to point out the<\/p>\n
evidence if any on this aspect. The learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
has also not been able to locate any such evidence adduced in<\/p>\n
this case about such conduct of the appellant’s mother.<\/p>\n
      28. Moreover, the evidence reveals that the appellant did,<\/p>\n
in fact, take part in the funeral rites\/rituals. The evidence of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       22<\/span><\/p>\n
PW2 clearly indicates that M.O1 series clothes were left at the<\/p>\n
house of PWs 1 and 2 by the appellant when he went there to<\/p>\n
perform the last rites. Of course the prosecution has a case that<\/p>\n
the appellant was compelled to take part in the funeral rituals.<\/p>\n
This is sought to be inferred from the evidence of PW1, who<\/p>\n
stated that on his request the appellant, the elder son of the<\/p>\n
deceased, had gone to perform the last rites. The reasons which<\/p>\n
prompted the appellant to wait for PW1’s request to take part in<\/p>\n
the funeral rites are not according to us so crucial as to draw any<\/p>\n
serious adverse inference against the appellant\/accused. A son<\/p>\n
in grief could also have acted in the manner which the appellant<\/p>\n
is alleged to have behaved. At any rate, we are unable to attach<\/p>\n
any crucial significance to this seventh circumstance relied on by<\/p>\n
the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      29. After ascertaining the existence\/non existence of the<\/p>\n
seven circumstances referred above, we shall now consider as to<\/p>\n
whether the circumstances proved can in any way point to the<\/p>\n
guilt of the accused\/appellant safely. We have already adverted<\/p>\n
to all the relevant circumstances. We are unable to agree that<\/p>\n
there is any circumstance which can satisfactorily connect the<\/p>\n
appellant with the crime in question.             The totality of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006       23<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances cannot at all generate the requisite satisfaction<\/p>\n
beyond doubt that the appellant was responsible for the death of<\/p>\n
his father.   The circumstances proved cannot lead a prudent<\/p>\n
mind to such a conclusion. The challenge raised against the<\/p>\n
impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence must, in<\/p>\n
these circumstances, succeed. Evidence shows that M.O2 towel<\/p>\n
was available at the place where the dead body was found. The<\/p>\n
prosecution suggests that M.O2 must have been used for<\/p>\n
ligature strangulation. It is significant that there is nothing in<\/p>\n
M.O2 to connect the same with the appellant. On M.O2 blood<\/p>\n
marks were found and those blood marks were of the same<\/p>\n
group as that of the deceased. M.O2 cannot offer any linkage to<\/p>\n
connect the accused with the crime. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
that cannot even be reckoned as a relevant circumstance.<\/p>\n
        30.       In the result:\n<\/p>\n
      a)   This Criminal Appeal is allowed;\n<\/p>\n
      b)   The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and the<\/p>\n
sentence     of   imprisonment    for  life   imposed    on   the<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused under Section 302 I.P.C is hereby set aside;<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.1465 of 2006      24<\/span><\/p>\n
      c)   If the appellant’s detention is not required in<\/p>\n
connection with any other case, he shall forthwith be released<\/p>\n
from custody.\n<\/p>\n
      31. The     Registry  shall forthwith  communicate     the<\/p>\n
operative portion of this judgment to the prison authorities and<\/p>\n
the court below for immediate necessary action.<\/p>\n
                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                   (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
rtr\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1465 of 2006() 1. SIVAN, S\/O. PONNAYYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-92206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T20:25:03+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T20:25:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4852,\"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\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T20:25:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T20:25:03+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T20:25:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"},"wordCount":4852,"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\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010","name":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T20:25:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-31-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92206","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=92206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}