{"id":99207,"date":"2010-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-14T06:03:55","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T00:33:55","slug":"anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n                            Cr. Appeal No. 1170 of 2005\n                                       With\n                            Cr. Appeal No. 1328 of 2005\n                                            ---\nAgainst the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2005 passed by\nthe learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 332 of 1994.\n                                            ---\n\n1. Anup Kumar Singh\n\n2. Krishna Mohan Singh\n\n3. Manas Mohan Singh @ Manas Singh\n\n4. Pradeep Kumar Singh (Cr. Appeal 1170\/05)\n\n\n\n1. Babu Ram Mahato\n\n2. Jyoti Lal Mahto\n\n3. Nakul Mahto\n\n4. Bhim Mahto (Cr. Appeal 1328\/05)                                         Appellants\n\n                                       Versus\nThe State of Jharkhand                                                 Respondents\n                                           ---\nFor the Appellants (1170\/05): Mr. M.S. Chhabra and Mr. B.K. Sinha, Advocates\nFor the Appellants: (1328\/05): Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, S.K Dubey and N.K. Ganju, Advocates\nFor the Respondents:         A.P.P.\n                                           ---\n                                  PRESENT\n                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK\n                                     ---\nReserved on: 04.02.2010                                     Pronounced on: 11.02.2010\n                                            ---\nD.G.R. Patnaik, J:     Both these appeals are disposed of together since they arise out of\nthe common impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.8.2005 passed by\nthe 12th Additional Sessions Judge, In S.T. No. 332 of 1994.\n2.             Heard Shri Rajiv Ranjan and Shri M.S. Chhabra , learned counsel for the\nappellants and A.P.P. For the State.\n3.             Appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 147, 148,\n307\/149 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year\nunder section 147 IPC, two years for offence under section 148 IPC and for seven years\nfor the offences under sections 307\/149. In addition, they have been ordered to pay a fine\nof Rs. 500\/- each for the offences under sections 307\/149 IPC.\n4.             The case against the appellants was registered on the basis of the\nfardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant Gopal Mahato (PW7) recorded by the A.S.I. of Police,\nMohuda Police Station at the sadar hospital, Dhanbad on 4.4.1993 at about 1.00 PM.\n5.             The prosecution case, as per the allegation in the FIR, is that in the\nmorning of 4.4.1993 in between 9.00 AM to 10.00 AM, the informant along with his\n                                               2\n\nbrother Nakul Mahato, father Leda Mahato and co-villager namely, Raghu Modak were\nremoving grass and cleaning the ponds situated in his village. At about 10.00 AM, the\npresent appellants, who happen to be co-villagers of the informant and are named in the\nFIR, came to the pond variously armed with tangi, sword, Bhujali, Bhala and revolver\nand began abusing the informant party for entering into the pond. When the informant's\nfather Leda Mahato stepped out of the pond, protesting against the abuse, the accused\nJyoti Lal, Nakul Mahato and Bhim Mahato assaulted him with Katra, sword and Bhujali\ncausing injuries on the victim's head. The impact of the assault felled him on the ground\nrendering him unconscious. When the informant and his brother wanted to escape, the\naccused Babu Ram Mahato assaulted them with sword causing injuries on the informant's\nhead while accused Manas Singh assaulted him with Bhala. It is further alleged that the\naccused Jyoti Lal, Nakul Mahato and Babu Mahato assaulted the informant's brother\nNakul Mahato on his head while the accused Pradeep Kumar Mahato also indulged in\nassault on the injured with lathi. On alarms raised by the victims, several co-villagers\ncame running and upon seeing them, the assailants fled away from the place. The\ninformant claims that he and his father and brother had sustained injuries on their head,\nback as well as on his arm.\n6.             The injured persons were thereafter removed to Mohuda Bazar to the\ndispensary of Dr. P.N. Tiwary from where they were taken to Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad\nfor their medical treatment. The informant has claimed that the assault made by the\nassailants was with intention to kill the victims.\n               Upon concluding the investigation and submission of charge sheet,\ncognizance against the appellants was taken by the court below for the offences under\nsections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 324 IPC and they were put on trial on charges for\nthe aforesaid offences.\n7.             The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges claiming that they have\nbeen falsely implicated in this case and that it was the informant party which had not only\nprovoked the violence, but had also assaulted the appellants, inflicting multiple injuries\non them.\n8.             At the trial, altogether ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution\nbesides adducing relevant documents including the fardbeyan of the informant (PW7)\nand the injuries reports of the injured Leda Mahato, Gopal Mahato and Nakul Mahato.\nThe appellants in their defence, have though not adduced any oral evidence, but have\nproved the certified copy of the judgment passed in the Title Suit No. 26 of 1988 passed\nby the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad and a copy of the judgment passed by the\nHigh Court in F.A. No. 225 of 1995 (R) as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme\nCourt in the SLP (C) No. 1088 of 2003 as well as judgment passed by the trial court in\nG.R. Case No. 1242 of 1993.\n9.             Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW7 is the\ninformant, PWs 5 and 8 are the injured persons PWs 1 and 2 are the sons of Leda\n                                              3\n\nMahato who along with PW3, have been projected by the prosecution as eyewitness of\nthe occurrence.\n               PWs 1 and 2 who are sons of the injured Leda Mahato, have though\nclaimed themselves to be the eyewitness of occurrence, but their evidence suggests that\nthey reached the place of occurrence upon hearing alarms and had come to know about\nthe occurrence after it was over. PWs 3 and 6 admit that they arrived at the place of\noccurrence upon hearing alarms and had seen the informant, his brother and father in\ninjured condition.\n               PW10 is a formal witness. His evidence has been adduced to prove the\nformal FIR while PW4 was tendered by the prosecution from cross-examination.\n               PW9 is a doctor who had proved the injury reports of the injured persons.\n               It is to be noted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been\nexamined.\n10.            It is also relevant to note that in respect of the alleged occurrence of the\nsame day, a counter case was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of one of the\npresent appellants, namely, Babu Ram Mahato, against the informant, his brother Nakul\nMahato, father Leda Mahato and five others, for the offences under sections 323,\n147,148, 341, 348 and 129 IPC on the allegations that on 4.4.1993 at about 10.00 AM,\nthe informant Babu Ram Mahato learnt that his co-villager namely, Leda Mahato and his\nsons were stealing fishes from the pond. Upon his objection, the accused persons\nindulged in hurling abuses at him. In course of altercation which ensued, the accused\npersons came out from the pond armed with lathi and iron rod and after surrounding the\ninformant, they assaulted him with lathi, iron and tangi inflicting multiple injuries on his\nbody. Upon the alarm raised by the victim, several co-villagers came running and they\ntoo saw the occurrence.\n11.            It would also be relevant to note that the appellant Babu Ram Mahato has\nclaimed title over the pond and in support of such claim, he has adduced judgments\npassed by the court of Subordinate Judge and affirmed by the High Court as well as by\nthe Supreme Court. In the present case, it appears that the informant and other witnesses\nhave admitted the fact that a counter case was instituted against him, his father and\nbrothers but adds that in the counter case, though the trial court had convicted them, but\ntheir conviction was set aside in appeal. The informant had also admitted that the dispute\npertaining to the pond was pending between both the parties prior to the date of\noccurrence.\n12.            Regarding the occurrence, the informant as well as his father Leda Mahato\n(PW5) and brother Nakul Mahato (PW8) have reiterated the statement made by the\ninformant in his fardbeyan. The doctor (PW9) who had proved the injury reports of the\ninjured persons, had found as many as six injuries on the person of the informant's father\nLeda Mahato. Out of the six injuries, five were found on the occipital and mid parietal\narea. X-ray report revealed that the aforesaid injured had sustained skull injury in the\n                                               4\n\nright parietal area, fracture of right posterior aspect of the occipital area and fracture on\nthe neck of right scapula.\n               The injuries found by the doctor on the person of the informant Gopal\nMahato indicates two incised wounds in right parietal area, one laceration on back of the\nleft shoulder and swelling in the left hand. However, none of these injuries have been\nconfirmed by the doctor as grievous in nature.\n               As regards the injured Nakul Mahato, the doctor has found one laceration\non mid parietal area measuring 3\"x1\/2\" bone deep. This injury was also not confirmed by\nthe doctor as grievous in nature. The doctor has however opined that the injury on all the\nthree injured persons who were examined by him in between 12.45 PM to 1.15 PM on\n4.4.1993<\/pre>\n
, could have been caused within six hours prior to the time of examination.\n<\/p>\n
13.            In their defence, the accused persons had pleaded that the pond belongs to
\nthem over which the informant party had no right whatsoever. Their title over the pond
\nhas been confirmed and declared by the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge which
\nhas been confirmed even by the Supreme Court. The informant party have therefore no
\nright whatsoever over the pond and they had illegally entered into the pond and were
\nstealing fishes from the pond. The accused persons had therefore the right to object to
\nsuch illegal acts of the informant party and to protect their property. The further plea of
\nthe accused persons was that it was the informant party who were the aggressors and who
\nhad also inflicted multiple injuries on the person of one of the appellant namely, Babu
\nRam Mahato.\n<\/p>\n
14.            The Trial Court after considering the evidences of the witnesses, and upon
\nhearing the rival submissions of the parties, recorded its findings that charge under
\nsection 148, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC stands proved against the accused persons and
\nhas convicted and sentenced them accordingly. While recording its findings, the Trial
\nCourt had observed that though, there was a dispute between the parties over their
\nrespective claims of title over the pond, but on the date of occurrence, the dispute was not
\nfinally resolved by any court and therefore, the accused persons could not claim exclusive
\npossession over the pond. The Trial Court had also observed that the accused persons had
\narrived at the pond variously armed with weapons and had inflicted multiple injuries on
\nthe person of the informant, his father and brother causing grievous injuries particularly
\nupon the father of the informant and the situs of the injuries and the grievous nature of
\nthe injuries inflicted upon one of the injured persons, do lead to the inference that the
\nintention behind the assault was to commit murder of the injured Leda Mahato and the
\nmotive of the assailants was to eliminate Leda Mahato who was actively contesting the
\ncivil suit.\n<\/p>\n
15.            The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of their conviction
\nand sentence on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
                             I. That, the findings as recorded by the Trial Court holding
\n                                the appellants guilty of the charges for the offences under
\n                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
    sections 307\/149 IPC, is totally misconceived and against
\n    the weight of evidence on record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
II. The Trial Court has erred in failing to appreciate the fact
\n    that for the same occurrence, a counter case was lodged
\n    against the informant party in which the Trial Court had
\n    convicted them for the several offences for which they
\n    were put on trial.\n<\/p>\n
III. The trial Court has erred in failing to consider that the title
\n    of the appellants over the pond was declared by the court of
\n    Subordinate Judge in the Title Suit, though the appeal filed
\n    by the informant party against the judgment and decree,
\n    was pending.\n<\/p>\n
IV. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that non-\n<\/p>\n
    examination of the Investigating Officer has caused grave
\n    prejudice to the accused persons in their defence in as much
\n    as, the contradictions elicited from the witnesses in their
\n    respective depositions before the court, as compared to
\n    their earlier statements made in course of investigation,
\n    could not be brought on record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
V. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that whereas,
\n    according to the allegation, both in the FIR and in the
\n    evidences of the informant, the injured Leda Mahato was
\n    assaulted by the appellants with sharp cutting weapons, but
\n    the doctor did not find any corresponding sharp cut injuries
\n    on the person of Leda Mahato. Similarly, no injury
\n    corresponding to injuries which could be inflicted by any
\n    sharp edged weapon, was found on the person of the
\n    injured Nakul Mahato.\n<\/p>\n
VI. The Trial Court has erred in placing implicit reliance upon
\n    the testimony of the interested witnesses who are closely
\n    related to the informant party and have definite bias against
\n    the present appellants. The Trial Court could not have
\n    placed reliance upon the testimony of the interested
\n    witnesses in absence of corroborative support from any
\n    independent witness.\n<\/p>\n
VII. In respect of the appellants Pradeep Kumar Singh, Anup
\n    Kumar Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Manas Singhthe
\n    Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that none of
\n    the witnesses have alleged any overt act alleged against
\n    them and that, even as per the evidence of the witnesses,
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
                               the maximum inference which could be drawn, is that they
\n                               were present at the place of occurrence and had not
\n                               participated in any manner in the alleged assault on the
\n                               informant party.\n<\/p>\n
                           VIII. The prosecution has not explained the injuries even on
\n                               the person of the appellant Babu Ram Mahato and this
\n                               aspect of the prosecution’s evidence ought to have been
\n                               considered by the Trial Court to infer that the prosecution
\n                               has not revealed the truth and has given a distorted version
\n                               of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
16.            From the facts of the case, admittedly, the genesis of the occurrence was
\nthe entry of the informant party into the pond which they had made purportedly for the
\npurpose of cleaning the pond. The accused persons arrived at the pond and protested
\nagainst the entry of the informant party into the pond. Such protest led to altercation
\nwhich flared up to a free fight in which both the parties had indulged in assaulting each
\nother. Admittedly, the informant party was present at the place of occurrence prior to the
\narrival of the accused persons. The nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons,
\nparticularly injured Leda Mahato supported by the oral evidence of the injured, does
\nconfirm that the accused persons who had arrived at the pond armed with weapons
\nincluding sharp cutting weapons had inflicted multiple injuries on them.\n<\/p>\n
17.            Undisputedly, in the free fight between both sides, injures were inflicted
\non member of both sides. However, as it appears from the evidence on record, on the side
\nof the accused persons, only one of them namely, Babu Ram Mahato had sustained
\ninjuries by sharp cutting weapons, though, simple in nature. The facts reveal that one of
\nthe members of the informant party had sustained more serious injuries including fracture
\ninjuries at the hands of the accused persons. The facts also adequately demonstrate that it
\nwas the accused persons who arrived at the place of occurrence armed with weapons
\ndetermined to challenge the informant party and also to assault them with their weapons
\nin order to restrain them from entering into the pond. .\n<\/p>\n
18.            The evidences of the witnesses namely, the informant Gopal Mahato, his
\nfather Leda Mahato and that of his brother Nakul Mahato, assume significance in view of
\nthe fact that they are the injured persons who had sustained injuries in course of the
\noccurrence and they are certainly eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Merely because they
\nbelong to the same family and appear to be interested witnesses, does not render their
\nevidence as unreliable or not trustworthy, nor would their evidence require support from
\nindependent sources unless their evidence suffer from major contradictions with each
\nother affecting the prosecution’s case on material aspects.\n<\/p>\n
19.            As has been observed by the Trial Court, though there was subsisting
\ndispute between the parties in respect of their rivals claims of title over the pond, but on
\nthe date of occurrence, no final decision on the pending dispute was declared by the Civil
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, till the dispute was resolved and their right,
\ntitle and interest was declared by the competent court, the accused persons could not
\npossibly raise the claim of right of private defence of property and take the liberty of
\nconfronting the informant party by use of weapons. Even if they had a bonafide claim of
\ntitle over the pond and even If they were aggrieved by the acts of the informant party, the
\nproper course of action for the accused persons was to take recourse in the pending legal
\nproceedings or to seek police protection. The conduct of the accused persons, as reflected
\nfrom the facts of the case, do demonstrate that they were the aggressors and the assault on
\nthe members of the informant party was made in furtherance of a common intention of
\ncausing injuries to them particularly to the informant’s father Leda Mahato. Such
\nintention of the accused persons amply indicated by the injuries jointly inflicted upon the
\ninformant’s father Leda Mahato and the nature of injuries caused to him.\n<\/p>\n
20.            However, it has to be seen as to whether, the acts indulged by the accused
\npersons, as appearing from the evidence of the informant and the two other injured
\nwitnesses, do suggest that the intention behind the assault was to commit murder of the
\ninformant’s father Leda Mahato.\n<\/p>\n
21.            The Trial Court appears to have drawn inference of such intention only on
\nthe ground that multiple injuries were inflicted upon the head of the injured Leda Mahato
\nand some of which were found to be grievous in nature. While recording its findings on
\nsuch inference, the Trial Court appears to have ignored the fact that though the accused
\npersons were alleged to have been armed with lethal weapons including sharp cutting
\nweapons and firearms, yet the injuries founds on the person of Leda Mahato by the
\ndoctor, do not confirm that any sharp cutting weapon or firearm was used to inflict the
\ninjuries upon him. All the injuries were lacerations which did not correspond to any
\ninjury which could have been caused by any heavy sharp cutting weapons of the nature
\nwhich the accused persons were alleged to have been armed with. Furthermore, though
\nthe doctor who had examined the injuries on the injured Leda Mahato has opined that the
\ninjuries were in the nature of fracture of the skull bone, but he has expressed no such
\nopinion to suggest that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
\ncause death or was likely to cause death of the injured. These aspects of the conduct of
\nthe accused persons assumes significance and is sufficient to indicate that the intention
\nbehind the assault was only to cause injuries to the victim, but not with intention to kill
\nhim or with knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death of the victim. In
\nabsence of any interference even from the informant and his brother, who admittedly did
\nnot attempt to rescue their father, there was nothing to prevent the assailants to do away
\nwith the life of the informant’s father by use of heavy sharp cutting weapons and
\nfirearms with which they were allegedly armed. Yet, they did not do so.\n<\/p>\n
               These aspects which emanate from the evidence on record, militate against
\nthe findings of the Trial Court which holds the accused persons guilty for the charges
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
under sections 307\/149 IPC. The offence which, under the circumstances, could at best
\nhave been inferred, is under section 325 IPC and not under section 307 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
22.            Even while recording the findings that the offence made out against the
\naccused persons is at best under sections 325 IPC, yet it has to be assessed by reference to
\nthe evidence of the injured witnesses in particular, as to which of the accused persons
\nshould be held liable for the offence.\n<\/p>\n
23.            From the testimony of the informant and the two other injured persons,
\nread with the testimony of the other witnesses, it appears that there is consistent evidence
\nonly against the accused Jyoti Lal Mahato, Bhim Mahato, Babu Ram Mahato and Nakul
\nMahato alleging that they had assaulted the informant’s father. While allegation against
\nthe accused Krishna Mohan Singh is that he arrived at the place of occurrence with
\nrevolver and that he and the accused Anup Kumar Singh had exhorted the others to
\nassault the informant party, but there is no consistent evidence of the alleged exhortation.
\nIt is also significant to note that though, the evidence of the injured witnesses and that of
\nthe other witnesses including PWs 1 and 2 suggest presence of the accused Pradeep
\nKumar Singh at the place of occurrence allegedly armed with lathi, but there is no
\nallegation against him that he had in any manner, participated in the assault upon any of
\nthe members of the informant party. In absence of any overt act alleged against them,
\nthese accused persons can not be charged of sharing any common object or intention with
\nthe other accused persons for inflicting injuries upon the injured Leda Mahato or upon
\nthe informant or his brother. Thus, none of the charges is proved against these accused
\npersons and hence, their conviction and sentence for the various offences for which they
\nwere charged , cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
24.            It is true that the Investigating Officer has not been examined but the
\nappellants have not demonstrated as to how and in what manner, have they suffered any
\nprejudice on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The evidence of
\nthe injured witnesses read together with the evidence of the other witnesses, do not
\nindicate any serious contradiction on any material aspect of the prosecution’s case, nor
\nhas the defence elicited any such serious contradiction in the statement of the witnesses
\nrecorded in course of investigation vis-a-vis their evidence adduced before the court in
\ncourse of trial. There is no dispute regarding the identity of place of occurrence. Though,
\nit does appear that neither the informant nor any of the two injured persons have
\nexplained the injury on the person of the accused \/ appellant Babu Ram Mahato, but this
\nin itself, does not render their testimony to be false and \/ or misleading. The injury found
\non the person of the accused Babu Ram Mahato was admitedly simple in nature and the
\ninference which may legitimately be drawn from the admission of facts, is that the simple
\ninjury on Babu Ram Mahato could have been caused in course of scuffle between both
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
25.            In the light of the above discussions, I find that the evidence is not
\nsufficient enough to prove the charges against the accused Anup Kumar Singh, Krishna
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Mohan Singh, Manas Mohan Singh @ Manas Singh and Pradeep Kumar Singh for any of
\nthe offences. As such, their conviction and sentence, as recorded by the Trial Court for
\nthe offences under section 147, 148, 307\/149 IPC is hereby set aside. They are acquitted
\nfrom the charges and they are absolved from the liability of their respective bail bonds.
\nCr. Appeal No. 1170 of 2005 is accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
26.            As regards the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1328 of 2005, after acquittal
\nof the four accused persons who are the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1170 of 2005,
\nconviction of appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 1328 of 2005 namely, Babu Ram Mahato,
\nJyoti Lal Mahto, Nakul Mahto and Bhim Mahato, cannot be sustained for the offences
\nunder sections 147 and 148 IPC. Their conviction and sentence for the offences under
\nsections 147 and 148 IPC is hereby set aside. Since the charge under section 307 IPC is
\nalso not made out against them, their conviction and sentence for the offence under
\nsections 307\/149 is hereby set aside. They are convicted instead for the offence under
\nsections 325\/34 IPC. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and
\nalso the fact that it being the first offence of these appellants, instead of imposing any
\nsentence upon them, they are directed to be released on probation on their furnishing
\nbond of Rs. 3,000\/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of
\nthe Trial Court, for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year from
\nthe date of execution of bonds.\n<\/p>\n
27.            The appellants must appear before the court below within 15 days from
\nthe date of this order and execute their respective bonds.\n<\/p>\n
               With the above modification, Cr. Appeal No. 1328 of 2005 is partly
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated the 11th February 2010
\nRanjeet\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010 1 Cr. Appeal No. 1170 of 2005 With Cr. Appeal No. 1328 of 2005 — Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 332 […]<\/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-99207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 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\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-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=\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2667,\"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\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 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":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 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\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010"},"wordCount":2667,"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\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010","name":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-14T00:33:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anup-kumar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-11-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anup Kumar Singh & Ors,. vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 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\/99207","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=99207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99207\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}