{"id":100475,"date":"2006-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-05-22T19:12:15","modified_gmt":"2018-05-22T13:42:15","slug":"pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: P Naolekar<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  434 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nPARDEEP KUMAR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
P.P. Naolekar, J. :\n<\/p>\n
\tAccused Lalit Gupta, Ashok Kumar alias Babbu, Pardeep
\nKumar and  Karam Chand were tried under Sections 366,
\n376,  whereas accused-Inderjit Singh was tried under Section
\n376 read with Section 109 and Section 368 of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (for short “IPC”).  All the five accused were held
\nguilty under Section 376, IPC by the Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Chandigarh and sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500\/- each
\nand in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous
\nimprisonment of two months.  The accused preferred appeals
\nbefore the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
\nAshok Kumar and Karam Chand died during pendency of
\nproceedings; Inderjit Singh was acquitted of the charge under
\nSection 376, IPC, while the conviction of Lalit Gupta and
\nPardeep Kumar under Section 376, IPC was upheld by the
\nHigh Court.  Against the impugned judgment, accused-
\nPardeep Kumar has preferred this appeal by special leave.
\n\tThe prosecution case as set out in the First Information
\nReport (FIR) is that the prosecutrix was living in House No.
\n3359, Sector 19D, Chandigarh with her brother and mother.
\nAccused-Lalit Gupta was after her and also promised to marry
\nher.  On 2nd February, 1987 at about 6.30 p.m., the
\nprosecutrix had gone to the market of Sector 19.  Accused-
\nLalit Gupta met her in the market and invited her to the house
\nof his cousin so that the proposal regarding marriage could be
\ndiscussed with his relations.  On this, the prosecutrix agreed
\nto accompany him to Sector 38, Chandigarh.  Lalit Gupta
\nhired a three-wheeler scooter (auto-rickshaw) and they
\nproceeded towards Sector 38.  In the midway, the auto-
\nrickshaw was got stopped by Lalit Gupta and accused-Ashok
\nKumar alias Babbu also boarded the auto-rickshaw.   When
\nthe prosecutrix, Lalit Gupta and Ashok Kumar entered the
\nhouse, another accused-Inderjit Singh, who was acquitted by
\nthe High Court, met them there.  The three accused then
\nconsumed liquor in the house.  When the advances made by
\nthe accused were resisted, accused-Inderjit Singh threatened
\nher with dire consequences of death and thereafter she yielded
\nto the wishes of the accused persons.  Thereafter, Lalit Gupta
\ncommitted rape on the prosecutrix against her wish and
\nwithout her consent which was followed by Ashok Kumar who
\nalso defiled her.  Thereafter, Karam Chand and Pardeep
\nKumar arrived there and they also committed rape.  All of
\nthem started taking liquor in another room, taking advantage,
\nthe prosecutrix escaped from the house.  On the way, she met
\npolice personnel to whom she narrated the whole incident.
\nThe police came to the house and apprehended Pardeep
\nKumar, Karam Chand and Lalit Gupta, but two other accused
\nAshok Kumar and Inderjit Singh managed to escape.  The FIR
\nwas lodged on the intervening night of 2nd & 3rd February,
\n1987 with Sub-Inspector Moti Ram at about 2.20 a.m.  The
\nprosecutrix was unmarried at the time of incident, and she
\nwas sent for medical examination.  Dr. G.K. Dhillon examined
\nher on 3rd February, 1987 at 1.30 p.m. and found no evidence
\nof any external injury.  The doctor also opined that she was
\nhabitual to sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court, inter alia, has upheld the conviction of
\nthe accused-appellant Pardeep Kumar for the offence under
\nSection 376, IPC relying on the version of the prosecutrix
\nsupported by the testimony of Constable Raghubir Singh to
\nwhom she had narrated the entire incident soon after her
\nescape from the place of occurrence.  The High Court has
\nobserved that the presence of the accused-appellant on the
\nspot where the rape was committed by other accused persons,
\nwas further corroborated by the fact that he was apprehended
\nfrom that house itself by CRPF jawans.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted before us by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned
\nsenior counsel for the appellant that the High Court
\ncommitted an error in convicting the accused-appellant under
\nSection 376, IPC when the statement of the prosecutrix before
\nthe court completely exonerated him from the commission of
\noffence of rape by deposing that only two accused persons,
\nnamely, Karam Chand and Ashok Kumar, defiled her against
\nher wish and consent; and that she had further stated that the
\nother accused could not have sexual intercourse with her
\nbecause getting a chance she opened the bolt of the room and
\nran away from the house.  It was submitted that on the face of
\nthe above statements of the prosecutrix, the accused-appellant
\nPardeep Kumar could not have been convicted.
\n\tOn the other hand,  Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel
\nfor the State submitted that the accused-appellant, although
\nhad not actually committed rape on the prosecutrix, was
\nrightly convicted under Section 376,  IPC, as it was amply
\nproved by the prosecution that the appellant was a member of
\nthe group which acted in concert to commit rape on the
\nprosecutrix and in furtherance of the common intention, rape
\nwas committed.    Thus, the submission of the learned counsel
\nfor the State is that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Section
\n376(2)(g), IPC, all members of a group would be liable for the
\nacts committed by other members of that group when the act
\nis committed in furtherance of their common intention,
\nnamely, intention to commit rape.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the
\nlearned counsel appearing on both sides, it would be
\nappropriate for us to extract the relevant provisions of Section
\n376, IPC,  as under:\n<\/p>\n
“376. Punishment for rape.-\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\t\t\txxx\t\t\t           xxx\n \t(2) Whoever, -\nxx \t\t\t xx  \t\t\t\t     xx\n(g) commits gang rape,\n<\/pre>\n
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
\nterm which shall not be less than ten years but
\nwhich may be for life and shall also be liable to fine:\n<\/p>\n
Provided
\nExplanation 1.- Where a woman is raped by
\none or more in a group of persons acting in
\nfurtherance of their common intention, each of the
\npersons shall be deemed to have committed gang
\nrape within the meaning of this sub-section.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t\tIn Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 2 SCC
\n143, this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“8. In order to establish an offence under Section
\n376(2)(g) IPC,  read  with Explanation I  thereto,  the <\/p>\n
prosecution must adduce evidence to indicate that
\nmore than one accused had acted in concert and in
\nsuch an event, if rape had been committed by even
\none, all the accused will be guilty irrespective of the
\nfact that she had been raped by one or more of
\nthem and it is not necessary for the prosecution to
\nadduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each
\none of the accused. In other words, this provision
\nembodies a principle of joint liability and the
\nessence of that liability is the existence of common
\nintention; that common intention presupposes prior
\nconcert which may be determined from the conduct
\nof offenders revealed during the course of action
\nand it could arise and be formed suddenly, but,
\nthere must be meeting of minds. It is not enough to
\nhave the same intention independently of each of
\nthe offenders. In such cases, there must be criminal
\nsharing marking out a certain measure of jointness
\nin the commission of offence.”\n<\/p>\n
In Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh,<\/a>
\n(2003) 8 SCC 551, the observations made by an earlier Bench
\nin Pramod Mahto and Others v. State of Bihar, 1989 Supp.
\n(2) SCC 672, were reiterated by this Court as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“14. In cases of gang rape the proof of completed act
\nof rape by each accused  on the victim is not
\nrequired.  The statutory intention in introducing
\nExplanation I in relation to Section 376(2)(g) appears
\nto have been done with a view to effectively deal with
\nthe growing menace of gang rape. In such
\ncircumstances, it is not necessary that the
\nprosecution should adduce clinching proof of a
\ncompleted act of rape by each one of the accused on
\nthe victim or on each one of the victims where there
\nare more than one in order to find the accused guilty
\nof gang rape and convict them under Section 376
\nIPC.”\n<\/p>\n
In a recent decision in Priya Patel v. State of M.P. and
\nAnr., JT<\/a> 2006(6) SC 303, this Court has observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“8. By operation of the deeming provision, a
\nperson who has not actually committed rape is
\ndeemed to have committed rape even if only one of
\nthe group in furtherance of the common intention
\nhas committed rape. ‘Common intention’ is dealt
\nwith in Section 34 IPC and provides that when a
\ncriminal act is done by several persons in
\nfurtherance of the common intention of all, each of
\nsuch persons is liable for that act in the same
\nmanner as if it was done by him alone. ‘Common
\nintention’ denotes action in concert and necessarily
\npostulates a pre-arranged plan, a prior meeting of
\nminds and an element of participation in action.
\nThe acts may be different and vary in character, but
\nmust be actuated by the same common intention,
\nwhich is different from same intention or similar
\nintention. The sine qua non for bringing in
\napplication of Section 34 IPC that the act must be
\ndone in furtherance of the common intention to do a
\ncriminal act. The expression ‘in furtherance of their
\ncommon intention’ as appearing in the Explanation
\nto Section 376(2) relates to intention to commit
\nrape.  ”\n<\/p>\n
To bring the offence of rape within the purview of Section
\n376(2)(g), IPC, read with Explanation 1 to this Section, it is
\nnecessary for the prosecution to prove:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthat more than one person had acted in
\nconcert with the common intention to commit
\nrape on the victim ;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tthat more that one accused had acted in
\nconcert in commission of crime of rape with
\npre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind and
\nwith element of participation in action.\n<\/p>\n
Common intention would be action in consort
\nin pre-arranged plan or a plan formed
\nsuddenly at the time of commission of offence
\nwhich is reflected by element of participation
\nin action or by the proof of the fact of inaction
\nwhen the action would be necessary.  The
\nprosecution would be required to prove pre-
\nmeeting of mind of accused persons prior to
\ncommission of offence of rape by substantial
\nevidence or by circumstantial evidence; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tthat in furtherance of such common intention
\none or more persons of the group actually
\ncommitted offence of rape on victim or victims.
\nProsecution is not required to prove actual
\ncommission of rape by each and every accused
\nforming group.\n<\/p>\n
On proof of common intention of the group of persons
\nwhich would be of more than one, to commit the offence of
\nrape, actual act of rape by even one individual forming group,
\nwould fasten the guilt on other members of the group,
\nalthough he or they have not committed rape on the victim or
\nvictims.\n<\/p>\n
It is settled law that the common intention or the
\nintention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the
\ncommon intention could be proved either from direct evidence
\nor by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the
\ncase and conduct of the parties. Direct proof of common
\nintention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention
\ncan only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from
\nthe proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances.
\n\tIn the light of the principles enumerated in the above-
\nmentioned cases, we have to analyse the factual matrix of the
\npresent case with regard to the accused-appellant’s conduct
\nand role played by him in the commission of offence.  The
\nprosecutrix while lodging the FIR had stated that the accused-
\nappellant reached the spot after the rape had been committed
\nby Lalit Gupta and Ashok Kumar, but in her statement before
\nthe court she deposed that on reaching  House No. 2451,
\nSector 38C, Chandigarh, when she did not find parents of
\naccused-Lalit Gupta present in the house, she told accused-
\nLalit Gupta that she would return to her home.   She also told
\nhim that he had defrauded her.  On this, accused-Ashok
\ndragged her inside the house and at the instance of Inderjit
\nSingh, Pardeep Kumar and Karam Chand came to the house.
\nAccused had also brought one person by name Bitu.
\nAccused-Karam Chand caught hold of her and raped her and,
\nthereafter Ashok caught hold of her and  committed rape
\nagainst her wish.  She stated that Pardeep,  Lalit and one
\nother person Bitu were taking liquor in the kitchen.  If we
\nbelieve the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant
\n(Pardeep Kumar) was present at the spot right from the very
\nbeginning along with other accused persons, Explanation 1 to
\nSection 376(2) would be attracted as it can be safely inferred
\nthat all the accused persons acted in concert with a common
\nintention to commit rape even if all the accused person have
\nnot actually committed rape.  But if statement of the
\nprosecutrix is considered as a whole with the FIR, it appears
\nthat the accused-appellant entered the house after the rape
\nhad been committed on the prosecutrix and thereafter he was
\nconsuming liquor with Lalit Gupta and one Bitu, then his
\nmere presence would not be sufficient to find him guilty taking
\naid of Explanation 1.  Although there has been some
\nprobability of the accused-appellant’s presence at the place of
\nthe commission of offence as he was apprehended from a place
\nnearby the spot of occurrence with the other accused persons,
\nnamely, Lalit Gupta and Karam Chand, but mere presence at
\nsuch place is insufficient to show that there was a prior
\nconcert or meeting of mind or plan formed suddenly at the
\ntime of commission of offence by the accused-appellant with
\nthe other accused persons for the commission of rape on the
\nprosecutrix.  The prosecutrix in her earlier version had
\nmentioned that the accused-appellant arrived late at the place
\nof incident and thereafter he was consuming liquor with the
\nother accused persons in a room.  Moreover, where specific
\nacts had been attributed to the other accused persons to show
\ntheir connivance and pre-concert to facilitate the offence in
\npre-planned manner, no such act or conduct has been
\nattributed to portray the accused-appellant’s role in
\nfurtherance of the common intention to commit rape.  The
\nprosecutrix in her statement before the court had categorically
\nstated that the accused-appellant had not defiled her and
\nnothing specific was mentioned about his conduct or role to
\nshow that he shared the common intention to commit rape.
\nThe prosecution did not produce any medical evidence to show
\nthat he consumed liquor when accused-appellant was
\navailable for such test as he  was alleged to have been arrested
\nimmediately after the incident at the place of occurrence.  The
\nprosecutrix had changed her version from time to time.  She
\nbegan with  alleging commission of the offence of rape by all
\nthe accused who faced trial, whereas in her deposition before
\nthe court she stated that only Karam Chand and Ashok
\nKumar had committed rape on her.   The statement of the
\nprosecutrix does not inspire confidence to reach to the
\nconclusion that the accused-appellant was present at the
\nplace of incident right from the very beginning to infer any pre-
\nconcert of the appellant with other accused persons to commit
\nrape.  In these circumstances, we feel that the accused-
\nappellant is entitled  to the benefit of doubt.
\n\tHence, in the light of above discussion, we set aside the
\norder of the Session Court as also that of the High Court
\nconvicting the accused-appellant under Section 376, IPC.  The
\nappeal is, accordingly, allowed.  The accused-appellant shall
\nbe set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006 Author: P Naolekar Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 434 of 2005 PETITIONER: PARDEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT: UNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/08\/2006 BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. : Accused Lalit Gupta, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2571,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - 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\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006"},"wordCount":2571,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006","name":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, ... on 18 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-22T13:42:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pardeep-kumar-vs-union-administration-on-18-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pardeep Kumar vs Union Administration, … on 18 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/100475","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=100475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}