{"id":92312,"date":"2000-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000"},"modified":"2016-12-05T08:26:01","modified_gmt":"2016-12-05T02:56:01","slug":"surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSURENDRA PRATAP CHAUHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM NAIK &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. Lahoti, &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    Ram Naik, Lalta and Kanta, the three accused-respondents<br \/>\nwho  are  real brothers were convicted under Section  302\/34<br \/>\nIPC  and  sentenced to imprisonment for life by\t the  Second<br \/>\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge,  Jaunpur\tby  judgment   dated<br \/>\n17.2.1979.  A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, by<br \/>\nits judgment dated 3.5.1991, allowed the appeal preferred by<br \/>\nthe  accused-respondents and acquitted them of the  charges.<br \/>\nSurendra  Pratap Chauhan, son of the deceased, has preferred<br \/>\nthis  appeal  by  special  leave under Article\t136  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  laying challenge to the acquittal recorded  by<br \/>\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t deceased Komal Ram, his father Ram Bharose &#8211; who is<br \/>\nalso  an eye-witness to the incident and who lodged the\t FIR<br \/>\nalso,  Zhamman\t(P.W.2)\t and  Baijnath\t(P.W.5)\t &#8211;  the\t two<br \/>\neye-witnesses  and  the\t three\taccused-respondent  are\t all<br \/>\nresidents  of  village Saravni Purbi Patti,  P.S.   Kerakal.<br \/>\nThere  was  a  civil litigation relating to a  land  dispute<br \/>\ngoing on since 1966 between Ram Bharose (P.W.1) &#8211; the father<br \/>\nof  the deceased Komal Ram and the accused Ram Naik, wherein<br \/>\nRam  Bharose had succeeded in the Trial Court.\tRam Naik had<br \/>\npreferred  an  appeal in the year 1976 which was to come  up<br \/>\nfor  hearing  on  19.5.1978.  Komal Ram, the  deceased,\t was<br \/>\nlooking\t after\tthe litigation on behalf of his father,\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose.  On 19.5.1978 also Komal Ram was scheduled to leave<br \/>\nfor  the  city where the appeal was to be heard.  Komal\t Ram<br \/>\nwas  a primary school teacher by profession.  At a  distance<br \/>\nof about 100 yards from the residential house of Ram Bharose<br \/>\nis  situated  his agricultural land which has also  a  well.<br \/>\nZhamman(P.W.2)\t and  Baijnath(P.W.5)\thave  their   houses<br \/>\nsituated  in  close vicinity of Ram Bharoses house  in\tthe<br \/>\nvillage.\n<\/p>\n<p>    According to the prosecution, sugarcane crop was sown in<br \/>\nthe  agricultural  land\t of  Ram   Bharose.   For  two\tdays<br \/>\npreceding  the\tdate  of  the incident the  crop  was  being<br \/>\nirrigated  from the well.  For this reason and it being\t the<br \/>\nsummer\tseason, Komal Ram used to sleep on a cot by the side<br \/>\nof  the well while Ram Bharose, Zhamman and Baijnath used to<br \/>\nsleep  at their respective houses in the village but outside<br \/>\nthe  houses as the villagers do during the summer.  At about<br \/>\n3.30 a.m.  on the night between 17th &amp; 18th May, Ram Bharose<br \/>\nwas  awakened by Komal Rams screams.  He too raised hue and<br \/>\ncry  which  attracted  Zhamman and Baijnath.   They  started<br \/>\nrunning\t towards the well.  Each one of them had a torch  in<br \/>\nhis  hand.  They reached near the cot of the deceased  Komal<br \/>\nRam.  Though it was moon-lit, the trio flashed their torches<br \/>\nand saw the three accused persons and an unidentified person<br \/>\nstanding  surrounding Komal Ram.  Accused Ram Naik was armed<br \/>\nwith  a\t gandasa  (a butchers heavy knife,  also  used\tfor<br \/>\nchopping  fodder-grass).   The\tother two  accused  and\t the<br \/>\nunidentified   person  were  empty-   handed.\tThe   three,<br \/>\nexcepting Ram Naik, had caught hold of Komal Ram keeping him<br \/>\npressed\t on the cot in the lying position while Ram Naik was<br \/>\nrasping\t Komal\tRams throat with gandasa, i.e.,\t using\tthe<br \/>\ngandasa\t like  a  saw or file.\tThe three  accused  and\t the<br \/>\nfourth\tperson\t&#8211;  all took to their heels having  seen\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose\t and  the two witnesses.  Komal Ram was\t found\tdead<br \/>\nhaving\tsustained a severe cut wound on the neck and another<br \/>\ninjury on the left hand.  They returned back to the village.<br \/>\nOne  Shriram Yadav helped Ram Bharose by preparing a written<br \/>\nreport of the incident which was taken to the police station<br \/>\nby  Ram\t Bharose  and  on its basis FIR\t (Exhibit  P-4)\t was<br \/>\nrecorded  by Sheikh Faikoo, the constable Mohrrir posted  at<br \/>\nthe  police  station at 6.10.a.m.  An offence under  Section<br \/>\n302   IPC  was\tregistered   and  the  usual   investigation<br \/>\ncommenced,  the\t details  whereof  are\tnot  very  material.<br \/>\nAutopsy\t on  the  dead\tbody  was  conducted  by  Dr.\tR.P.<br \/>\nRastogi.    On\tcompletion  of\t investigation\t the   three<br \/>\naccused-respondents were charge-sheeted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the testimony<br \/>\nof  Ram\t Bharose(P.W.1), Zhamman(P.W.2) and  Baijnath(P.W.5)<br \/>\ntrustworthy    and   based    conviction    of\t the   three<br \/>\naccused-respondents  thereon.  The High Court has found\t the<br \/>\noccular\t evidence not worthy of credence and the prosecution<br \/>\nstory  shaky.\tIn  the opinion of the High Court it  was  a<br \/>\nblind  murder and the accused-respondents have been  falsely<br \/>\nimplicated on account of long pending litigation between the<br \/>\ncomplainant and the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\thave heard the learned counsel for the appellant and<br \/>\nalso  the learned counsel for the State.  Having heard their<br \/>\nsubmissions  and  having gone through the statements of\t the<br \/>\nseveral\t witnesses  as also the other material available  on<br \/>\nrecord\twe are of the opinion that the finding of  acquittal<br \/>\nas  arrived  at\t by  the  High Court is\t not  liable  to  be<br \/>\ninterferred with.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\talready\t stated, strained relationship\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nthree accused-respondents and the complainant Ram Bharose is<br \/>\nan admitted fact.  Ram Bharose(P.W.1) has also admitted that<br \/>\nZhamman\t and Baijnath, the two eye-witnesses were his  caste<br \/>\nfellows.   In the civil litigation, Zhamman and Baijnath had<br \/>\nappeared  as his witnesses against Ram Naik.  The litigation<br \/>\nhad  been  going on for about 12 years prior to the date  of<br \/>\nthe  incident.\t Ram Naik having lost in the first round  of<br \/>\nlitigation,  had preferred an appeal and was prosecuting the<br \/>\nsame.\tApparently,  nothing had happened immediately  which<br \/>\ncould\t have\t prompted   or\t   motivated\tthe    three<br \/>\naccused-respondents  to\t murder Komal Ram.  If\tthere  would<br \/>\nhave  been any such apprehension on the part of the deceased<br \/>\nor  the\t complainant, the deceased Komal Ram would not\thave<br \/>\ngone to sleep alone near the well.  At the same time, merely<br \/>\nbecause\t the  relations between the accused persons and\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  were  strained  leading  to  groupism  in\t the<br \/>\nvillage,  the  testimony of the eye-witnesses is not  to  be<br \/>\ndiscarded  though it needs to be scrutinised with caution so<br \/>\nas to eliminate the possibility of any false implication.\n<\/p>\n<p>    According  to Ram Bharose(P.W.1), he was awakened by the<br \/>\nshouts\tof  Komal Ram.\tHe got up and ran towards the  well.<br \/>\nHis  own  cries awakened Zhamman and Baijnath who  also\t ran<br \/>\ntowards\t the well.  Each one of the three had a torch in his<br \/>\nhands.\t The torches were flashed when they had reached near<br \/>\nthe  deceased.\tHe saw the accused Lalta holding one arm  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  and the unidentified culprit holding  another<br \/>\narm  of the deceased.  According to him the accused Ram Naik<br \/>\nwas  also  keeping  pressed with his foot one  hand  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased.   The accused Kanta had caught hold of the face of<br \/>\nthe  deceased and was keeping it pressed.  According to\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose one of the culprits had climbed over the legs of the<br \/>\ndeceased  though  he was not able to name who he  was.\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose\t and  the two witnesses had reached near the cot  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  almost simultaneously.  Other villagers\talso<br \/>\nreached there but a little later.  During cross-examination,<br \/>\nhe  stated,  when he and the witnesses had reached near\t the<br \/>\ncot,  the accused persons were already running away and were<br \/>\nat a distance of about 15 lathas (one latha being about 5 to<br \/>\n6 feet).\n<\/p>\n<p>    According  to  Zhamman(P.W.2),  he having arose  at\t the<br \/>\ncries  of Ram Bharose, picked up his torch and followed\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose,  who  was running towards the well.  From 10 to  12<br \/>\npaces away from the well he saw the accused Ram Naik rasping<br \/>\nthe throat of Komal Ram with gandasa and three other persons<br \/>\nincluding  Lalta  and  Kanta, accused keeping  the  deceased<br \/>\nKomal Ram pressed on the cot.  He had not heard the voice of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  Komal  Ram  but had heard the  cries  of\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose\t only.\t None had lighted the torches while  running<br \/>\ntowards\t the well as moon-light had created some visibility.<br \/>\nThe two witnesses ran after Ram Bharose and had reached near<br \/>\nthe cot of the deceased.  He stated to have seen the accused<br \/>\nRam Naik rasping Komal Rams throat.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Baijnath(P.W.5)  states  to\t have been awakened  by\t the<br \/>\ncries of Ram Bharose and Komal Ram.  He also ran towards the<br \/>\nwell  with  a torch in his hands.  He could see\t nothing  so<br \/>\nlong  as he was running towards the well.  He did not  light<br \/>\nhis  torch on the way.\tAccording to him neither he nor\t Ram<br \/>\nBharose nor Zhamman lighted any torch as it was not required<br \/>\non  account of twilight visibility being available.  He\t saw<br \/>\nthe  deceased  Komal Ram lying on the cot, Kanta  and  Lalta<br \/>\naccused\t and  an unidentified person gripping  the  deceased<br \/>\nkeeping\t him  pressed on the cot while Ram Naik was  cutting<br \/>\nKomals throat with gandasa.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Dr.\t  R.P.\t Rastogi  who\tconducted  the\t post-mortem<br \/>\nexamination of deceased Komal Ram at 3.45 p.m.\ton 18.5.1978<br \/>\nfound  an incised wound 22 cm x 3\u00bd cm x \u00bd cm on the neck  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased.\t The neck was joined with skin on  the\tback<br \/>\nside  and right side.  The incised wound was behind the neck<br \/>\ngoing to the right from the left, about 5 cm below the right<br \/>\near.   The thyroid cartilage was cut parallel to chin on the<br \/>\nlevel  of  4th vertebra of the neck.  The bone was  entirely<br \/>\ncut.   The borders of the wound were clean cut and  multiple<br \/>\ntags  of  skin were present.  There was yet another  incised<br \/>\nwound  17 cm x 3 \u00bc cm x bone deep extending from behind\t the<br \/>\nforearm\t to  the back of the palm of the left  hand  between<br \/>\nlittle\tand ring fingers.  The 4th metacarpal bone and\tleft<br \/>\nradius\tbone were cut.\tThe borders of the wound were  clean<br \/>\ncut.   The cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage\t due<br \/>\nto  the\t neck  injury.\tThe death was likely to\t have  taken<br \/>\nplace  at  3.30\t a.m.\tThe injury  was\t sufficient  in\t the<br \/>\nordinary course of nature to cause death.  Both the injuries<br \/>\ncould  have  been caused by a weapon like  gandasa.   During<br \/>\ncross-examination,  Dr.\t Rastogi stated that the neck injury<br \/>\nseemed\tto  have  resulted not by one blow  but\t by  several<br \/>\nblows.\t He stated that if a sharp weapon was rasped at\t one<br \/>\nplace  then  tags would not be left at the rasped place\t and<br \/>\nthe  wound  would  be  clean  cut.  In\tanswer\tto  a  Court<br \/>\nquestion, Dr.  Rastogi stated that if the neck be cut by one<br \/>\nblow  then  due to the force of the same becoming  light  on<br \/>\nbeing inflicted the upper surface would be clean cut and the<br \/>\ntags would remain at the other end.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe weapon of the offence was not recovered.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t nature\t of the injury on the neck, as described  by<br \/>\nDr.  Rastogi, renderes it highly probable that heavy blow or<br \/>\nblows,\tone  or two, were dealt with by sharp cutting  heavy<br \/>\nweapon, may be a gandasa, resulting into instantaneous death<br \/>\nof  the\t deceased.   By\t the same or a\tsimilar\t weapon\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  sustained an injury on the hand also.\t The medical<br \/>\nevidence  does\tnot suggest the neck of the deceased  having<br \/>\nbeen  rasped,  i.e.,  by  using like a saw,  a\tweapon\tlike<br \/>\ngandasa.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t story\tas  narrated  by Ram  Bharose,\tZhamman\t and<br \/>\nBaijnath  does\tnot fit in with the medical  evidence.\t The<br \/>\nthree  witnesses  state\t Ram Naik rasping the  neck  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  while\t two co-accused and one unidentified  person<br \/>\nwere  leaning  over the victim catching hold of or  pressing<br \/>\nthe  hands,  legs  and face of the deceased.  The  story  of<br \/>\nrasping\t the  neck  appears to have been introduced  by\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses  with\t dual  purpose.\t Firstly, rasping  the\tneck<br \/>\nwould  take  time and enable the witnesses to  identify\t the<br \/>\nassailants.   Secondly,\t the act of rasping the\t neck  would<br \/>\ncertainly  be  resisted by the victim who would\t not  remain<br \/>\nstationary   and  therefore  the   two\tco-accused  and\t  an<br \/>\nunidentified  person can be introduced in the  incriminating<br \/>\nstory  playing\tthe part of holding the victim tied  to\t the<br \/>\ncot.   None  of\t the  witnesses\t  explains  how\t the  victim<br \/>\nsustained  the\tinjury on the hand.  Each one of  the  three<br \/>\neye-witnesses  states  to  be sleeping with a torch  by\t his<br \/>\nside.\tEach of the witnesses brought his torch in the Court<br \/>\non  the date of his examination and showed the torch to\t the<br \/>\nCourt.\t Each of the torches is a three-cell torch, i.e.,  a<br \/>\npowerful  one.\t Ordinarily,  people in the village  do\t not<br \/>\nsleep  accompanied by torches unless it is customary in\t the<br \/>\nvillage\t to do so!  There is contradiction in the  testimony<br \/>\nof Ram Bharose and Baijnath whether the torches were lighted<br \/>\nor  not.   Ram\tBharose and Zhamman have  contradicted\teach<br \/>\nother  on  the\tpoint at which the torches were\t flashed  __<br \/>\nwhile  running\ttowards the well or when the  witnesses\t had<br \/>\nreached near the cot of the deceased.  It was just moonlight<br \/>\neven if the moon was there in the sky.\tIf the witnesses had<br \/>\ntorches\t in  their hands and they were running\ttowards\t the<br \/>\nwell  on the village path or through the fields the  natural<br \/>\nimpulse would be to flash the torches so as to make the path<br \/>\nvisible\t and also to attempt to have a view of the place  of<br \/>\nthe  incident  wherefrom  the cries had\t emanated.   If\t the<br \/>\ntorches\t were  lighted,\t the assailants would  not  keep  on<br \/>\nstanding  but would rather take to their heels in which case<br \/>\nthey  would  not  have been identified.\t The High  Court  is<br \/>\nright  in observing that the case appears to be one of blind<br \/>\nmurder\tand false implication of the accused persons who are<br \/>\nthree  real brothers so as to avenge the enmity generated by<br \/>\nthe land dispute.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Ordinarily,\t Ram Bharose would have rushed to the police<br \/>\nstation\t and  narrated the incident orally to the  constable<br \/>\nMohrrir\t for  the purpose of recording the FIR.\t However,  a<br \/>\nwritten\t report\t prepared by Shriram Yadav was taken to\t the<br \/>\npolice\tstation.   It is surprising that the written  report<br \/>\ncarried\t by Ram Bharose and delivered at the police  station<br \/>\nhas  not  been exhibited.  Shriram Yadav, the scribe of\t the<br \/>\nreport,\t has  also not been examined.  According  to  Shiekh<br \/>\nFaikoo(P.W.6)  there was only one FIR, the one in  question,<br \/>\nlodged at the P.S.  on that day.  The General Diary in which<br \/>\nthe  FIR was recorded was thus open and so available for the<br \/>\nwhole  day.   No record has been produced to show  when\t the<br \/>\ncopy  of  the  FIR  was\t  despatched  to  the\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nMagistrate  in\tcompliance with S.157 Cr.P.C..\tWe  are\t not<br \/>\nrecording  any\tfinding\t that the FIR in the case  was\tmade<br \/>\nbelatedly  and then ante-timed;\t we are only pointing out at<br \/>\na  few\tlikely holes left unplucked by the  prosecution\t and<br \/>\nhence perceptible in the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nat hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t High  Court  has on an evaluation of  the  evidence<br \/>\nfound  the  ocular evidence untrustworthy and discarded\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  version of the incident in so far as it relates<br \/>\nto the accused-respondents.  We too are not inclined to take<br \/>\na different view.  The unnaturality of the story attributing<br \/>\ncollective role to four assailants apparently with a view to<br \/>\nembroil\t as many, higher probability of the assailants being<br \/>\nnot  available\tby the side of victim  improbablising  their<br \/>\nidentification,\t more  likelihood  of the incident  being  a<br \/>\nhit-and-run crime as reflected by medical testimony, coupled<br \/>\nwith  other infirmities in the prosecution case evaluated in<br \/>\nthe light of strained relations between the parties anterior<br \/>\nto  the\t incident  persuade  us not to\tinterfere  with\t the<br \/>\nfinding\t recorded  by the High Court.  The acquittal of\t the<br \/>\naccused-respondents has to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The appeal is dismissed.  The judgment of the High Court<br \/>\nacquitting  the\t accused-respondents  is  maintained.\t The<br \/>\naccused-  respondents  are  on\tbail.  The  bail  bonds\t are<br \/>\ndischarged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil. PETITIONER: SURENDRA PRATAP CHAUHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM NAIK &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/11\/2000 BENCH: R.C. Lahoti, &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil. JUDGMENT: R.C. Lahoti, J. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J Ram Naik, Lalta and [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - 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\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-05T02:56:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T02:56:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2618,\"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\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-05T02:56:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - 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\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-05T02:56:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T02:56:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000"},"wordCount":2618,"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\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000","name":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-05T02:56:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surendra-pratap-chauhan-vs-ram-naik-ors-on-13-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surendra Pratap Chauhan vs Ram Naik &amp; Ors on 13 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/92312","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=92312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}