{"id":99991,"date":"2009-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-31T09:48:46","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T04:18:46","slug":"hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nCr Appeal No. 11-A OF 2002  \nHem Raj alias Hemu  \nPetitioners\nState of J&K\nRespondent  \n!Mr. J. P. Sharma, Adv.\n^Mr. S. C. Gupta, AAG. \n\nHonb\ufffdble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir    \nDate: 12\/08\/2009 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.6.2002
\nand 13.6.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in File
\nNo.35\/Session, titled, State vs Hem Raj<\/a> alias Hemu and others (for short,
\nimpugned orders), whereby and whereunder the appellant came to be convicted and
\nsentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 Ranbir
\nPenal Code (for short, RPC).\n<\/p>\n
Brief facts of the case
\nOne Mst. Pushpa Devi-prosecutrix lodged a report on 8.3.1999 at about 15:30
\n(3:30 pm) in Police Station Udhampur with the allegation that on 5.3.1999 at
\nabout 8:30 pm she was in her house with her son and two daughters, three
\npersons, namely, Hem Raj-appellant herein, Mukhtyar Singh and third person, name
\nnot known, asked her whether she was having eggs, she replied in negative. They
\nasked her where her husband was and she replied that he was out of station.
\nThereafter, they asked for a chicken, she replied in negative. At that time she
\nwas preparing meal in the kitchen. All the three persons entered into her house
\nwith criminal intention, appellant-Hem Raj caught hold of her, laid her on the
\nfloor of the room and raped her. The other two persons broke the box and took
\naway Rs.1500\/-. Thereafter all the three persons ran away. On her hue and cry,
\none Amar Nath came on spot. Her husband returned on 6.3.1999 and she narrated
\nthe entire story to him on the same day. 7th March 1999 was a holiday and on
\n8.3.1999 she lodged a report in the Police Station. During investigation the
\ninvestigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses, effected seizures
\nand obtained the opinion of medical expert\/FSL opinion. The investigating
\nofficer came to the conclusion that only appellant-Hem Raj and Mukhtyar Singh
\nwere involved in the commission of offences, whereas nothing was collected
\nagainst the third person. Further, the investigating officer came to the
\nconclusion that Mukhtyar Singh and the third person had not taken away Rs.1500\/-
\nafter breaking the box, but only Mukhtyar Singh had made an attempt to break the
\nbox and to take away the said amount. The appellant and Mukhtyar Singh came to
\nbe arrested. The final report came to be presented before the Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, Udhampur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions
\nJudge, Udhampur-trial court. The appellant-accused No.1 came to be charge
\nsheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 458 RPC and Mukhtyar
\nSingh-accused No.2 came to be charge sheeted for the commission of offences
\npunishable under Sections 380, 458 and 511 RPC. The accused pleaded not guilty
\nand claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of 13 cited
\nin the witness calendar. The prosecution failed to examine PWs 9, 10 and 13. The
\ntrial court vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2002 convicted the appellant-
\naccused No.1 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC and
\nacquitted him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 458 RPC and
\nalso acquitted Mukhtyar Singh-accused No.2. Thereafter, the trial court heard
\nthe appellant and prosecution on the question of punishment and awarded sentence
\nagainst the appellant vide order dated 13.6.2002.\n<\/p>\n
Before arriving at a just conclusion, it is proper to give brief resume of the
\nprosecution witnesses herein:\n<\/p>\n
PW1 Pushpa Devi has stated that on the date of occurrence she was preparing the
\nmeal and her children were present in the house, whereas her husband was not
\nthere. She came out to fetch water and found accused-Hem Raj, Mukhtyar Singh and
\na third person, name not known, present in the compound. Accused-Hem Raj asked
\nfor a chicken, but she told him that she did not have any. Then accused-Hem Raj
\ncaught hold of her and took her inside the house. The other accused caught her
\nfrom behind. All the accused laid her in the room, accused-Hem Raj opened and
\nput off her trouser (salwar) and forcibly raped her. She tried to get rid of and
\nsave herself, but Hem Raj did not allow her to do so and raped her twice. The
\nsecond accused did not commit any rape on her and the third person stole away
\nRs.1500\/- and silver ear rings belonging to her. She made hue and cry, one Amar
\nNath, brother of her husband, armed with danda came on spot and the accused ran
\naway. On the next day she reported the matter to the Numberdar and on the third
\nday she lodged a report in the police station. She has admitted the contents of
\nFIR, Parcha illat and seizure relating to Salwar as true and correct and came to
\nbe exhibited as EXPWPD, EXPWPD1 and EXPWPD2 respectively.
\nPW2-Lal Chand is the husband of prosecutrix. He has deposed that he was not
\npresent on the spot when the alleged occurrence took place.
\nPW3-Amar Nath has deposed that Pushpa Devi is the wife of his younger brother
\nLal Chand. On the date of occurrence he heard noise at about 8 pm. He went there
\nand found Hem Raj and Pushpa Devi in the house of Lal Chand, Pushpa Devi was
\nweeping. When he opened the door it was pitch dark and accused-Hem Raj came out
\nof the room. On inquiry Pushpa Devi told him that accused Hem Raj forcibly
\ncommitted sexual intercourse with her. He had only seen accused-Hem Raj in the
\nsaid house and none else, Pushpa Devi was sitting on the cot and thereafter he
\nreturned back to his home.\n<\/p>\n
In cross-examination he has stated that the house of accused is located just
\nthree b\ufffdzaribsb\ufffd\/three meters away from the house of Pushpa Devi and his house
\nis not adjacent to the house of Pushpa Devi, but houses of b\ufffdPremub\ufffd and
\nsister of prosecutrix are adjacent to the house of Pushpa Devi. Her sister did
\nnot come on spot. Lal Chand is dealing with liquor and father of accused-Hem Raj
\nhad lodged a report against Lal Chand about the trade of illicit liquor.
\nPW4-Om Parkash is the witness to the seizure of Salwar, EXPWPD2.
\nPW5-Smt. Hroli, PW6-Mst. Dewanu, PW7-Mst. Koshalya Devi and PW8-Smt. Shellu are
\nnot the witness to the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
PW9-Dr. Uma Sharma has deposed that the prosecutrix was brought before her on
\n8.3.2009, whereas occurrence had taken place on 5.3.1999. She being a married
\nwoman, it was not possible for her to frame a definite opinion regarding rape.
\nOn cross examination she stated that she had not seen the presence of
\nspermatozoa in vaginal smear.\n<\/p>\n
PW10-Jagdish Singh is the investigating officer, who has recorded the statements
\nof witnesses and prepared the site plan PXPWJS. He has also seized one lock, a
\nlatch-EXPWAN and Salwar-EXPWPD2.\n<\/p>\n
In cross-examination he has stated that the occurrence had taken place on
\n5.3.1999, he visited the spot on 14.3.1999 and arrested the accused on
\n16.7.1999. The complainant had found the alleged stolen articles in her trunk on
\nthe next day.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court acquitted the accused Mukhtyar Singh and also acquitted the
\nappellant for the offence punishable under Section 458 RPC, but only convicted
\nhim for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC on the
\nsolitary statement of the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Hale C. J. of Australia, said, b\ufffdRape is an accusation easily to be made
\nand hard to be proved and harder to be defended by the party concerned, though
\nnever so innocent.b\ufffd
\nKeeping in mind the observations supra and the ratio of Apex Court judgments, it
\nis beaten law of the land that conviction can be based on the solitary statement
\nof the prosecutrix provided it is truthful and inspires confidence.
\nIn the judgment titled as Ghulam Mohammad Pahalwan vs State, reported in SLJ
\n1983, J&K, P-175 held that, once the Court is satisfied that the version given
\nby the prosecutrix is trustworthy, free of blemish and find support from medical
\nevidence the court need for no other corroboration to record conviction.
\nApex Court in the case titled State of Karnataka vs Mapilla P. P. Soopi,<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 2004, SC 85, held that corroboration is required when statement
\ngiven by the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and appears not to be free
\nof blemish.\n<\/p>\n
The Apex Court in the case titled Aman Kumar and another vs State of Haryana,
\nreported in AIR 2004, SC 1497, held that prosecutrix complaining of having been
\na victim of the rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of
\nlaw that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material
\nparticulars. However, if the Court of facts finds it difficult to accept the
\nversion of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct
\nor circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony.
\nKeeping in view the entire history of the case right from the lodging of FIR
\ntill the prosecutrix appeared before the Court, it appears that she has changed
\nher statement in material particulars. The prosecutrix case is shrouded in
\ndoubts for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
i.      In the FIR the prosecutrix has alleged that accused-Hem Raj, Mukhtyar
\nSingh and third accused, name not known to her, entered into her house at 8:30
\npm when she was cooking food for her children in the kitchen. They asked about
\nthe eggs and chicken, she stated that she did not have any. Thereafter they
\nenquired about her husband, caught hold of her, accused-Hem Raj laid her on the
\nfloor of the room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse, thereby committed
\nrape upon her. The other two accused broke the lock of the box and stole away
\nRs.1500\/-, on her hue and cry, brother of her husband, namely, Amar Nath came on
\nspot and the accused ran away. The investigating officer, however, found that
\nthe allegations against accused No.3, whose name is not known, were not correct.
\nHe also found that the accused had not stolen away the currency notes, but only
\nMukhtyar Singh-accused No.2 had made an attempt. However, when the prosecutrix
\nappeared before the Court, she made a different story by deposing that she was
\npreparing meal for her children, came out of her house for fetching water and
\nfound all the three accused in the compound. They asked her about the eggs and
\nchicken, she replied that she did not have any and, thereafter, they made an
\ninquiry about her husband, she replied that he was not present in the house.
\nThereafter Accused-Hem Raj caught hold of her, the other accused helped him and
\nlaid her on the floor of the room and accused-Hem Raj committed rape on her and
\nthe other two accused stole away Rs.1500\/- and silver ear rings belonging to her
\nafter breaking open the lock of the box.\n<\/p>\n
ii.     She has also deposed that when she made hue and cry, the neighbours and
\nAmar Nath came on spot and on noticing him the accused ran away. But Amar Nath
\nhas stated that he heard noise at 8 pm and rushed to the house of his brother.
\nHe opened the door and found accused-Hem Raj and prosecutrix in the house and
\nprosecutrix was weeping on the cot.\n<\/p>\n
Amar Nath has specifically stated that when he entered her house, he did not see
\nany other person in the house.\n<\/p>\n
iii.    The prosecutrix has specifically stated before the Court that the other
\ntwo accused had stolen away Rs.1500\/- and silver ear rings. She has no where
\nstated in the FIR that accused have also stolen the silver ear rings. This she
\ndeposed for the first time before the trial court. The investigating officer
\nduring investigation found that accused-Mukhtyar Singh had not stolen away
\nRs.1500\/-, but he has stated that an attempt was made by accused-Mukhtyar Singh.
\nHe has categorically stated that no evidence had come forth against the third
\naccused. The investigating officer while deposing before the Court has stated
\nthat the prosecutrix found the stolen articles in the room on the next day of
\nalleged occurrence, whereas the prosecutrix has deposed in the Court that
\naccused Nos.2 & 3 have stolen the said articles after breaking open the lock of
\nthe box. The prosecutrix has stated in the FIR as also deposed before the Court
\nthat she narrated the whole incident to the Numberdar. Why the Numberdar has not
\nbeen examined, is not explained by the prosecution. If she reported the matter
\nto the Numberdar on the next day of alleged occurrence, why she did not make the
\nreport to the police on the very same day, which is only 20 kms away from her
\nhouse as per EXPWPD1. Further, why Amar Nath did not lodge report on the same
\nday, instead of going back to his home and why on the next day he had not
\nreported the matter to the police or taken any action, which a prudent man would
\ndo after hearing\/noticing that some person had raped his relative.
\niv.     The prosecutrix has specifically stated in the FIR and before the Court
\nthat his son and two daughters were present in the house at the time of alleged
\noccurrence. Why their statements were not recorded during investigation and why
\nthey were not produced before the Court is also not forthcoming from the record
\nand has also not been explained by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
v.      Who closed the door is also not explained by the prosecution. If the
\naccused would have closed the door, the children of prosecutrix would have
\ndefinitely made hue and cry. Amar Nath has only found the accused-Hem Raj in the
\nhouse. She has stated that she was laid on the floor of the room, then how she
\nwas sitting on the cot, as stated by Amar Nath when he entered the room on
\nhearing the noise, is not forthcoming from the record. He nowhere has stated
\nthat he had seen accused-Hem Raj committing the sexual intercourse with the
\nprosecutrix when he opened the door. He has nowhere stated that the prosecutrix
\nwas not wearing the salwar at that particular point of time. In the given
\ncircumstances it cannot be ruled out that it is not a case of b\ufffdconsentb\ufffd.
\nvi.     The prosecution has failed to explain the three days delay. The medical
\nreport is also not in favour of prosecution. Dr. Uma Sharma has nowhere stated
\nthat she found any injury on any part of the body of prosecutrix not to speak of
\nprivate parts. If at all the prosecutrix would have made an attempt to save
\nherself or would have resisted, then definitely there would have been some
\nbruises\/scratches\/injury marks on any part of her body, when the prosecutrix has
\nspecifically stated that the accused opened and put off her salwar and forcibly
\ncommitted rape on the floor of the room.\n<\/p>\n
vii.    The evidence also discloses that the father of appellant-accused had
\nlodged a report against the husband of the prosecutrix about the trade of
\nillicit liquor. It can also be not ruled out that the case is not the outcome of
\nrivalry.\n<\/p>\n
        Apex Court in the case titled Davinder Singh and others vs State of
\nHimachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3365, held that when there is delay in
\nlodging FIR coupled with the fact that there are inconsistencies in the
\nstatement of the prosecutrix, it is not safe to base conviction on the testimony
\nof prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
        Honb\ufffdble High Court of Orissa in the case titled Sanya alias Sanyasi
\nChallan Seth vs State of Orissa, reported in Cr. L. J. 1993, Page 2784, on
\nsimilar facts dismissed the prosecutrix case and acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        It is apt to reproduce para-2 of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court
\nin case titled State of Andhra Pradesh vs Lankapalli Venkateshwarlu,<\/a> reported in
\nAIR 2000 SC 3555, hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        b\ufffdWe have perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court with the
\nassistance of learned counsel for the parties. Not only has the prosecutrix
\ngiven to go-bye to the version, in material particulars, as recorded in the FIR
\nin her evidence recorded in Court, but, even the medical evidence recorded by
\nthe Doctor b\ufffd” P.W. 12 does not at all support the allegations made by the
\nprosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
In the given circumstances, the conviction cannot be made basis on the solitary
\nstatement of the prosecutrix without corroboration. The trial court has fallen
\nin error while holding that without corroboration, the conviction can be made on
\nthe solitary statement of the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment and order of conviction
\nand sentence are set aside and the case of prosecution is dismissed. The accused
\nis, accordingly, acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
Jammu   (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
\nDated:12.8.2009 Judge
\n(Anil)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Appeal No. 11-A OF 2002 Hem Raj alias Hemu Petitioners State of J&K Respondent !Mr. J. P. Sharma, Adv. ^Mr. S. C. Gupta, AAG. Honb\ufffdble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir Date: 12\/08\/2009 :J […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - 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\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-31T04:18:46+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T04:18:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2756,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T04:18:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - 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\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-31T04:18:46+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T04:18:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009"},"wordCount":2756,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009","name":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T04:18:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hem-raj-alias-hemu-vs-unknown-on-12-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hem Raj Alias Hemu vs Unknown on 12 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/99991","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=99991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}