{"id":410,"date":"2020-04-23T10:29:51","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:29:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=410"},"modified":"2021-01-17T04:38:08","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T04:38:08","slug":"courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/","title":{"rendered":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt."},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong> Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 21st December 2019\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>VIRENDER VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2010<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>On the intervening night between 6\/7.11.1999, the first\ninformant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar (the deceased), had gone\nto their field, which they had taken on Batai, for irrigation purposes; at\nabout 1:30\/2:00 AM on 07.11.1999, <\/li><li>The informant sent Krishan Kumar to verify the water flow in\nthe channel which passed through the \u2018Dol\u2019 of the field of Accused No.3- Hawa\nSingh; when Krishan Kumar was near his tube well (situated near the middle of\nHawa Singh\u2019s field), the first informant heard noises of abuses, and on\nreaching the said place he saw Hawa Singh armed with a axe, Accused No.1 Satpal\narmed with a sickle, and Accused No.2 Virender, the appellant herein, armed\nwith a lathi; and Hawa Singh raised a cry exhorting that the deceased should be\ntaught a lesson. <\/li><li>Thereafter, Hawa Singh gave an axe blow to the deceased on\nthe right shoulder, Satpal aimed two sickle blows on the head of the deceased\nwhich, however, fell on his left arm, and the appellant gave a lathi blow on\nthe left knee of the deceased, who fell to the ground. <\/li><li>At that point of time, Hawa Singh gave the deceased an axe\nblow on his chest, and Satpal gave him a sickle blow on the left knee. When the first\ninformant raised a hue and cry, the uncle of the first informant, Jugal\nKishore, came to the spot, and also witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the\naccused ran away from the scene. <\/li><li>The first information report was lodged on the\nmorning of 07.11.1999 and the accused were brought before the sessions court,\nNarnaul. wherein the sessions court has passed a judgment convicting the\nappellant\/accused along with two other accused for the offence under Section\n302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter \u201cIPC\u201d). <\/li><li>Later an appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab\nand Haryana at Chandigarh and the court confirming the judgment of the Sessions\nCourt, Narnaul.<\/li><li>The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the\nHigh Court has appealed in the supreme court stating that the courts conviction\nwas merely on assumption and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite\nof the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case\nagainst the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. <\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issue:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Whether the courts have power to convict merely on assumption and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held: <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>The court held that the prosecution has failed\nto prove any common intention on the appellant\u2019s part, inasmuch as there is no\nhint of any motive or reason for him to have either participated in\npre-planning the murder of the deceased, or to develop the common intention to\ndo so while present at the spot of the offence. <\/li><li>It stated that both the Session Court as well as\nthe High Court of Punjab and Haryana have concluded against the appellant\nmerely on assumptions and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of\nthe prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against\nthe appellant beyond reasonable doubt. <\/li><li>It also noticed that the appellant has already\nsuffered more than five years of imprisonment. Be that as it may, since we find\nthat the evidence against the appellant is shaky and insufficient to bring home\nguilt against him, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt must endure\nto him. <\/li><li>Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the\nTrial Court and confirmed by the High Court as against the appellant stands set\naside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since\nhe is already on bail, he need not be arrested in connection with the crime in\nquestion. The bail bonds, if any, executed by him stand discharged. The appeal\nis allowed accordingly. <\/li><\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 21st December 2019\u00a0 VIRENDER VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2010 Facts of the case: On the intervening night between 6\/7.11.1999, the first informant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar (the deceased), had gone to their field, which they had taken on Batai, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":150,"featured_media":373,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.8.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti<\/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:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 21st December 2019\u00a0 VIRENDER VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2010 Facts of the case: On the intervening night between 6\/7.11.1999, the first informant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar (the deceased), had gone to their field, which they had taken on Batai, [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/All-the-love-from-James-9.jpg?fit=560%2C315&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"315\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lahari Gurrala\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lahari Gurrala\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183\"},\"headline\":\"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\"},\"wordCount\":694,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court Judgement\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\",\"name\":\"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183\",\"name\":\"Lahari Gurrala\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Lahari Gurrala\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/linkedin.com\/in\/lahari-gurrala-0602371b4\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lahari-gurrala\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti","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:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti","og_description":"Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 21st December 2019\u00a0 VIRENDER VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2010 Facts of the case: On the intervening night between 6\/7.11.1999, the first informant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar (the deceased), had gone to their field, which they had taken on Batai, [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":560,"height":315,"url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/All-the-love-from-James-9.jpg?fit=560%2C315&ssl=1","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Lahari Gurrala","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lahari Gurrala","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/"},"author":{"name":"Lahari Gurrala","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183"},"headline":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.","datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/"},"wordCount":694,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court Judgement"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/","name":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:51+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T04:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/courts-when-cannot-conclude-against-the-appellant-merely-on-assumptions-and-conjectures-prosecution-has-failed-to-discharge-its-burden-of-prove-against-the-appellant-beyond-reasonable-doubt\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Courts cannot conclude against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures, if prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of prove against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/4d1f372168263513846528ea38410183","name":"Lahari Gurrala","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","caption":"Lahari Gurrala"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/linkedin.com\/in\/lahari-gurrala-0602371b4"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lahari-gurrala\/"}]}},"views":165,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/150"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=410"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7182,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/410\/revisions\/7182"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/373"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}