REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2047-2049 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 8485-87 of 2009]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Central Bureau of Investigation .. Appellant<\/p>\n\n\n\n
-versus-<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kishore Singh & others .. Respondents<\/p>\n\n\n\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Markandey Katju, J.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Leave granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. What should be done to policemen who `bobbitt\u2019 a person in \u00a0a police station and think that they can get away with it? \u00a0That is \u00a0the question to be decided in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. These appeals by special \u00a0leave have been filed against the \u00a0impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2008 \u00a0passed in D.B. \u00a0Criminal Appeal No. 235\/2006, SB Criminal Appeal No. 31\/2006 \u00a0& SB Criminal Appeal No. 70\/2006 of Rajasthan High Court at \u00a0Jodhpur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. This case reveals how some policemen in our country have \u00a0not got over their old colonial mentality and are still persisting in \u00a0barbaric \u00a0acts \u00a0in \u00a0a \u00a0free \u00a0country \u00a0which \u00a0claims \u00a0to \u00a0be \u00a0run \u00a0by \u00a0a \u00a0democratic Constitution and the rule of law. \u00a0It also reveals a grisly \u00a0state of affairs prevailing in our police set up even today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Heard Mr. J.S. Atri, learned senior counsel appearing for the \u00a0appellant, \u00a0CBI, \u00a0\u00a0Mr. \u00a0KTS \u00a0Tulsi, \u00a0learned \u00a0senior \u00a0counsel \u00a0for \u00a0respondent constable Kishore Singh, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned \u00a0senior counsel for respondent Assistant Sub-Inspector Sumer Dan \u00a0and \u00a0Ms. \u00a0Aishwarya \u00a0Bhati, \u00a0learned \u00a0counsel \u00a0appearing \u00a0for \u00a0respondent S.H.O. Sohan Singh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. The \u00a0prosecution \u00a0case \u00a0is \u00a0that \u00a0one \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram, \u00a0the \u00a0injured \u00a0witness in this case, was an employee of one Bheru Singh and was \u00a0working in his liquor shop. \u00a0Jugta Ram also lived in the house of \u00a0Bheru Singh in one room of the upper floor, while the family of \u00a0Bheru Singh was living in the ground floor. Bheru Singh had two \u00a0sons and three daughters. \u00a0Jugta Ram is said to have had an affair \u00a0with Bheru Singh\u2019s wife and eldest daughter. \u00a0This was suspected \u00a0by \u00a0Bheru \u00a0Singh, \u00a0whose \u00a0relative \u00a0was \u00a0accused \u00a0constable \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. On 2.2.1994, at about 8 P.M. Jugta Ram was carrying a bottle \u00a0of \u00a0liquor \u00a0when \u00a0accused \u00a0constable \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh \u00a0met \u00a0him\u00a0and\u00a0snatched the liquor bottle and in the course of the scuffle the bottle \u00a0fell down and got broken. \u00a0Kishore Singh then took Jugta Ram to \u00a0the Sadar police station where the accused SHO Sohan Singh and \u00a0some \u00a0policemen \u00a0were \u00a0also \u00a0present. \u00a0\u00a0Sohan \u00a0Singh \u00a0allegedly \u00a0 assaulted Jugta Ram and at that time Bheru Singh also came to the \u00a0Police \u00a0station. \u00a0Accused \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh, \u00a0constable, \u00a0is \u00a0the \u00a0son \u00a0of \u00a0Bheru Singh\u2019s brother-in-law (sala). \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8. Jugta Ram was taken to the police station on 2.2.1994 and \u00a0kept locked up there till 5.2.1994. \u00a0He was beaten up in the police \u00a0lockup by Bheru Singh, constable Kishore Singh and A.S.I. Sumer \u00a0Dan. \u00a0\u00a0On 4.2.1994 at \u00a0about \u00a02 \u00a0or \u00a03 P.M., \u00a0\u00a0Jugta Ram\u2019s \u00a0brother \u00a0Kheraj \u00a0Ram \u00a0came \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0police \u00a0station \u00a0and \u00a0he \u00a0stated \u00a0that \u00a0the \u00a0policemen demanded Rs. 40-50 thousand otherwise Jugta Ram will \u00a0not be released.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9. On 5.2.1994, Jugta Ram was again assaulted by Bheru Singh, \u00a0Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh who kept asking about his illicit \u00a0relationship and then he stated that he had illicit relationship with \u00a0Gaj \u00a0Kanwar, \u00a0wife \u00a0of \u00a0Bheru \u00a0Singh. \u00a0\u00a0At \u00a0this, \u00a0Bheru \u00a0Singh \u00a0and \u00a0Sumer Dan caught hold of Jugta Ram. \u00a0Accused A.S.I. Sumer Dan \u00a0held Jugta Ram by the neck and put his hand on his mouth and \u00a0then accused constable \u00a0Kishore Singh chopped off \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram\u2019s \u00a0penis with a sharp edged weapon (\u2018ustra\u2019 or barber\u2019s razor). \u00a0At \u00a0this, \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram \u00a0became \u00a0unconscious \u00a0and \u00a0when \u00a0he \u00a0gained \u00a0consciousness he found that he was admitted in Barmer hospital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10. Jugta Ram related the story to the doctors in the hospital and \u00a0also his brother Kheraj Ram who came there with some persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
11. The police registered the F.I.R. \u00a0of Jugta Ram on 5.2.1994 \u00a0under sub-Section 307\/326. \u00a0Initially the investigation was handed \u00a0over \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0Additional \u00a0S.P., \u00a0Barmer, \u00a0but \u00a0thereafter \u00a0it \u00a0was \u00a0transferred to the C.I.D., Crime Branch which added the offences \u00a0of Sections 343 and 120B I.P.C. \u00a0Thereafter, at the instance of the \u00a0State Government the investigation was transferred to the C.B.I., \u00a0which investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
12. The accused denied the prosecution case, but the trial court \u00a0found \u00a0all \u00a0the \u00a0three \u00a0accused \u00a0guilty \u00a0vide \u00a0its \u00a0judgment \u00a0dated \u00a021.12.2005. \u00a0The fourth accused Bheru Singh died during the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
13. The trial court sentenced accused Kishore Singh to rigorous \u00a0imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000\/- under Section 326 \u00a0IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000\/- \u00a0under Section 308 IPC. \u00a0It also sentenced him under Sections 323 \u00a0and 343 IPC. \u00a0The trial court sentenced accused Sohan Singh to 6 \u00a0months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and 1 years\u2019 \u00a0rigorous imprisonment under Section 343 IPC. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
14. The trial court also sentenced accused Sumer Dan to 10 years \u00a0rigorous imprisonment \u00a0and a fine of Rs. 2000\/- under Sections \u00a0326\/114 IPC and also 7 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment \u00a0and a fine of \u00a0Rs. \u00a02000\/- \u00a0under \u00a0Sections \u00a0308\/114 \u00a0IPC \u00a0and \u00a0further \u00a05 \u00a0years\u2019 \u00a0rigorous imprisonment \u00a0under Section 120B IPC read with some \u00a0other provisions of \u00a0the IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
15. In appeal the High Court acquitted Sohan Singh and Sumer \u00a0Dan and reduced the sentence of Kishore Singh to the sentence \u00a0already undergone for the conviction under Section 326 IPC and a \u00a0fine of Rs. \u00a01 lakh, \u00a0and 1 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment \u00a0\u00a0for the \u00a0offence under Section 343 IPC \u00a0which was altered to Section 342 \u00a0IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
16. Now this appeal has come up before us against the judgment \u00a0of the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
17. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court \u00a0acquitting accused Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and reducing the \u00a0sentence \u00a0of \u00a0accused \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh \u00a0cannot \u00a0be \u00a0sustained \u00a0as \u00a0it \u00a0amounts to gross travesty of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
18. Mr. KTS Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for accused \u00a0Kishore Singh, submitted that in this case Section 335 of the IPC \u00a0applies and hence Section 326 is not applicable. \u00a0He argued that \u00a0there \u00a0was \u00a0a \u00a0sudden \u00a0and \u00a0grave \u00a0provocation \u00a0to \u00a0accused \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh by the injured witness Jugta Ram whose penis was chopped \u00a0off. \u00a0\u00a0Learned \u00a0counsel \u00a0submitted \u00a0that \u00a0before \u00a05.2.1994 there \u00a0was \u00a0only a suspicion that Jugta Ram was having an affair with the wife \u00a0of Bheru Singh, but on 5.2.1994 when he admitted this fact there \u00a0was \u00a0a \u00a0sudden \u00a0and \u00a0grave \u00a0provocation \u00a0since \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh \u00a0is \u00a0a \u00a0relative of Bheru Singh. \u00a0With respect, we do not agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
19. It may be mentioned that Jugta Ram had been kept in police \u00a0lockup \u00a0from \u00a02.2.1994 \u00a0to \u00a05.2.1994 \u00a0without \u00a0even \u00a0producing \u00a0him \u00a0before a magistrate as is required by Article 22 of the Constitution \u00a0and Section 57 Cr.P.C.. \u00a0Jugta Ram\u2019s penis was cut off by accused \u00a0Kishore Singh by a razor after accused Sumer Dan held Jugta Ram. \u00a0In \u00a0our \u00a0opinion, \u00a0it \u00a0cannot \u00a0be \u00a0said \u00a0there \u00a0was \u00a0a \u00a0sudden \u00a0grave \u00a0provocation so as to attract Section 335 IPC, rather it was a pre-meditated act by Sumer Dan and Kishore Singh. \u00a0Kishore Singh \u00a0was carrying a sharp edged weapon with him at the time when he \u00a0cut off Jugta Ram\u2019s penis. \u00a0Policemen do not normally carry any \u00a0sharp edged weapon, \u00a0like \u00a0a \u00a0barber\u2019s \u00a0razor, \u00a0with \u00a0them. \u00a0\u00a0Thus it \u00a0evident \u00a0that \u00a0it \u00a0was \u00a0a \u00a0pre-meditated \u00a0act \u00a0on \u00a0the \u00a0part \u00a0of \u00a0Kishore \u00a0Singh. \u00a0Also, Sumer Dan cannot say that there was a sudden and \u00a0grave provocation to him when he held Jugta Ram. \u00a0Sumer Dan is \u00a0not related to Bheru Singh or his wife. \u00a0\u00a0Hence, neither Kishore \u00a0Singh \u00a0nor \u00a0Sumer \u00a0Dan \u00a0could \u00a0have \u00a0any \u00a0sudden \u00a0and \u00a0grave \u00a0provocation. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The evidence \u00a0on record reveals \u00a0that \u00a0third-degree \u00a0methods were applied to Jugta Ram ever since he was brought to \u00a0the police station on 2.2.1994. \u00a0Thus Section 335 will not apply \u00a0and instead Section 326 IPC applies in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
20. We have carefully perused the evidence on record \u00a0and we \u00a0see no reason to disbelieve the deposition of the injured witness \u00a0Jugta Ram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
21. As regards the argument that there were no witnesses other \u00a0than \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram, \u00a0in \u00a0our \u00a0opinion \u00a0in \u00a0a \u00a0police \u00a0station \u00a0it \u00a0is \u00a0hardly \u00a0possible for there to be any witness there except the policemen and \u00a0the victim. \u00a0A police station is not a public road or public place \u00a0where people can see what is going on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
22. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for Sumer Dan \u00a0submitted \u00a0that \u00a0Sumer \u00a0Dan was not \u00a0present \u00a0at \u00a0the police \u00a0station \u00a0when the incident occurred. \u00a0We do not agree. Jugta Ram clearly \u00a0stated in his deposition before the court (and earlier in his FIR) that \u00a0Sumer Dan had caught his neck and put his hand on Jugta Ram\u2019s \u00a0mouth and Kishore Singh chopped off his penis with a sharp edged \u00a0weapon. \u00a0Jugta Ram had no enmity with Sumer Dan and hence \u00a0there \u00a0was \u00a0no reason \u00a0for \u00a0him to \u00a0make \u00a0a \u00a0false \u00a0statement \u00a0against \u00a0Sumer \u00a0Dan. \u00a0\u00a0Moreover, \u00a0we \u00a0find \u00a0it \u00a0difficult \u00a0to \u00a0believe \u00a0that \u00a0one \u00a0person unaided can chop off the penis of an adult. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
23. Mr. \u00a0Rakesh \u00a0Dwivedi, \u00a0learned \u00a0counsel \u00a0then \u00a0submitted \u00a0that \u00a0some \u00a0of \u00a0the \u00a0witnesses \u00a0who \u00a0are \u00a0CBI \u00a0officials \u00a0had \u00a0deposed \u00a0that \u00a0Sumer Dan was not present at the police station at the time of the \u00a0incident. \u00a0We are not inclined to believe those witnesses. \u00a0At any \u00a0rate their version is based on inferences drawn from the case diary \u00a0maintained \u00a0by \u00a0the \u00a0accused \u00a0police \u00a0officers. \u00a0\u00a0On the \u00a0other \u00a0hand, \u00a0there \u00a0is \u00a0no \u00a0reason \u00a0for \u00a0disbelieving \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram, \u00a0for \u00a0the \u00a0reasons \u00a0already stated above. \u00a0He is an injured witness, and normally the \u00a0Court gives more weight to the evidence of an injured witness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
24. As regards SHO Sohan Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned \u00a0counsel for this accused, submitted that the only evidence against \u00a0him is that he was present at the police station when Jugta Ram \u00a0was brought there and he slapped Jugta Ram. \u00a0However, being the \u00a0SHO of the police station we find it difficult to believe that he was \u00a0unaware of what was going on at the police station, and we see no \u00a0reason to disbelieve Jugta Ram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
25. When a person is brought to the police station and locked up \u00a0there, obviously he is under arrest. Article 22(2) of the Constitution \u00a0requires that within 24 hours of the arrest the arrested person must \u00a0be produced before a magistrate, and the same is the requirement \u00a0in Section 57 Cr.P.C. \u00a0It is admitted by the accused that Jugta Ram \u00a0was never produced before the magistrate within 24 hours, rather \u00a0he was kept in the police station from 8 p.m. on 2.2.1994 upto 8 \u00a0a.m. on 5.2.1994 when he was tortured in the police station leading \u00a0to the incident after which he was shifted to the hospital. \u00a0Sohan \u00a0Singh \u00a0being the \u00a0S.H.O. \u00a0is \u00a0squarely \u00a0to \u00a0blame for \u00a0this \u00a0deliberate \u00a0lapse. \u00a0It has come in the evidence of Jugta Ram that when he was \u00a0brought to the police station on 2.2.1994 Sohan Singh was present \u00a0there and he slapped Jugta Ram. \u00a0We see no reason to disbelieve \u00a0this \u00a0statement. \u00a0\u00a0Hence \u00a0it \u00a0cannot \u00a0be \u00a0said \u00a0that \u00a0Sohan \u00a0Singh \u00a0was \u00a0unaware of the events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
26. Also \u00a0all \u00a0the \u00a0accused \u00a0are \u00a0guilty \u00a0of \u00a0totally \u00a0flouting \u00a0and \u00a0throwing to the winds the directives of this Court in D.K. Basu \u00a0vs. \u00a0State \u00a0of \u00a0West \u00a0Bengal 1997 \u00a0(1) \u00a0SCC 416 \u00a0(vide \u00a0paragraph \u00a035). \u00a0That decision outlaws third degree methods in police stations, but \u00a0it is well known that third degree methods are still widely used in \u00a0many of our police stations, as this case reveals. \u00a0Hence accused \u00a0Sohan Singh cannot be absolved of the charge against him under \u00a0Section 342 IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
27. \u00a0\u00a0The doctor (Madan Mohan Purohit) who examined Jugta \u00a0Ram \u00a0deposed that on 5.2.1994 he inspected Jugta Ram at Govt. \u00a0hospital Barmer and he found an injury about 8 x 8 cm, deep up to \u00a0the muscle. \u00a0There was no penis and blood was seeping from the \u00a0injury. \u00a0The injury was up to the basis of the penis and towards the \u00a0scrotum. \u00a0The injury was serious in \u00a0nature and was made by a \u00a0sharp \u00a0edged \u00a0weapon \u00a0about \u00a04 \u00a0hours \u00a0earlier. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram \u00a0was \u00a0brought \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0hospital \u00a0by \u00a0two \u00a0constables \u00a0one \u00a0of \u00a0whom \u00a0was \u00a0Moolaram. \u00a0\u00a0Obviously \u00a0after \u00a0cutting \u00a0off \u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram\u2019s \u00a0penis \u00a0the \u00a0accused must have got scared that Jugta Ram may die of bleeding, \u00a0and hence they sent him to the hospital. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
28. Jugta Ram was also examined by Dr. M.L. Motiyani in the \u00a0hospital and he found that Jugta Ram\u2019s penis had been cut off. \u00a0We \u00a0have \u00a0also \u00a0seen \u00a0the \u00a0deposition \u00a0of \u00a0Dr. \u00a0\u00a0H. \u00a0K. \u00a0Singhal, \u00a0Medical \u00a0Officer in the Barmer hospital who deposed to the same effect. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
29. We \u00a0have \u00a0also \u00a0seen \u00a0the \u00a0evidence \u00a0of \u00a0\u00a0Jugta \u00a0Ram\u2019s \u00a0brother \u00a0Kheraj Ram, and the other witnesses. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
30. On the facts of the case we see no reason to disbelieve the \u00a0prosecution \u00a0case and we are \u00a0surprised how the \u00a0High Court \u00a0has \u00a0acquitted Sohan Singh and Sumer Dan and reduced the sentence of \u00a0accused Kishore Singh. \u00a0It was a barbaric act on the part of the \u00a0accused, who deserve no leniency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
31. In our opinion, policemen who commit criminal acts deserve \u00a0harsher \u00a0punishment \u00a0than \u00a0other \u00a0persons \u00a0who \u00a0commit \u00a0such \u00a0acts, \u00a0because it is the duty of the policemen to protect the people, and \u00a0not \u00a0break \u00a0the \u00a0law \u00a0themselves. \u00a0\u00a0If \u00a0the \u00a0protector \u00a0becomes \u00a0the \u00a0predator civilized society will cease to exist. \u00a0As the Bible says \u201cIf \u00a0the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted? (Matthew \u00a05, Mark 9.50 and Luke 14.34-35)\u201d, or as the ancient Romans used \u00a0to say \u00a0\u201cWho will guard the praetorian guards?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
32. On the facts of the case we enhance the sentence of accused \u00a0Kishore Singh to 5 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment \u00a0under Section \u00a0326 IPC and a fine of Rs.50,000\/- failing which he shall further \u00a0undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. \u00a0Kishore Singh is \u00a0also \u00a0found \u00a0guilty \u00a0under \u00a0Section \u00a0342 \u00a0IPC \u00a0and \u00a0sentenced \u00a0to \u00a0six \u00a0months \u00a0rigorous \u00a0imprisonment. \u00a0\u00a0The \u00a0two \u00a0sentences \u00a0shall \u00a0run \u00a0concurrently. \u00a0In case the fine is deposited the same shall be paid to \u00a0the victim as compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
33. As regards accused Sumer Dan, his acquittal is set aside and \u00a0he is \u00a0found guilty \u00a0of \u00a0the \u00a0offence \u00a0under \u00a0Sections \u00a0326 read with \u00a0Section \u00a0120B \u00a0IPC \u00a0and \u00a0is \u00a0sentenced \u00a0to \u00a03 \u00a0years \u00a0rigorous \u00a0imprisonment \u00a0and a \u00a0fine \u00a0of \u00a0Rs. \u00a050,000\/- \u00a0failing \u00a0which he \u00a0shall \u00a0further suffer 1 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment. \u00a0He is also found \u00a0guilty of the offence under Section 342 IPC and is sentenced to sixmonths \u00a0rigorous \u00a0imprisonment. \u00a0\u00a0The \u00a0two \u00a0sentences \u00a0shall \u00a0run \u00a0concurrently. \u00a0\u00a0The amount \u00a0of \u00a0fine if \u00a0deposited shall \u00a0be \u00a0paid as \u00a0compensation to the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
34. As regards accused Sohan Singh, we set aside his acquittal \u00a0and hold him guilty under Section 342 IPC and sentence him to six \u00a0months \u00a0simple \u00a0imprisonment \u00a0and \u00a0a \u00a0fine \u00a0of \u00a0Rs. \u00a010,000\/- \u00a0failing \u00a0which he shall \u00a0further suffer one month\u2019s simple imprisonment. \u00a0The \u00a0amount \u00a0if \u00a0deposited \u00a0shall \u00a0be \u00a0paid \u00a0to \u00a0the \u00a0victim \u00a0as \u00a0compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
35. The appeals filed by the CBI are allowed, and the High Court <\/p>\n\n\n\n
judgment is set aside. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026.J. (Markandey Katju)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..J. (T. S. Thakur)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
New Delhi; October 25, 2010 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2047-2049 of 2010 [arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 8485-87 of 2009] Central Bureau of Investigation .. Appellant -versus- Kishore Singh & others .. Respondents J U D G M E N T Markandey Katju, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. What should be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[481],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-481"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13705"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13705\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13708,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13705\/revisions\/13708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}