{"id":108138,"date":"1995-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995"},"modified":"2015-02-21T05:31:22","modified_gmt":"2015-02-21T00:01:22","slug":"harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","title":{"rendered":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1995 (9),    178\t  1995 SCALE  (7)127<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K B.N.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHARNAM SINGH AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1995 (9)   178\t  1995 SCALE  (7)127\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nKIRPAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  were tried\t for offences under Sections<br \/>\n147, 148  and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short &#8216;IPC&#8217;)<br \/>\nor in  the alternative\tunder Section  302 read with Section<br \/>\n149 on\tthe allegation\tthat they  had committed rioting and<br \/>\nthat  while  being  armed  with\t deadly\t weapons,  they\t had<br \/>\ncommitted murder  of Deokaran  Singh or, in the alternative,<br \/>\nthey all  committed his\t murder\t in  prosecution  of  common<br \/>\nobject of  unlawful assembly of which these seven appellants<br \/>\nwere members  on 21st  September, 1979, at 5 p.m. at village<br \/>\nBaghwar, P.S. Kareli.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Sessions  Judge, Narsinghpur  by his judgment dated<br \/>\n8th February,  1980, acquitted\tthe  appellants.  The  State<br \/>\nfiled an  appeal  against  acquittal  and  the\tson  of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased &#8211; Deokaran Singh also filed a revision application.<br \/>\nThe High  Court came  to the conclusion that the judgment of<br \/>\nthe trial  court was  perverse and,  on the appraisal of the<br \/>\nevidence, it  set aside\t the acquittal of the appellants and<br \/>\nconvicted each\tone of\tthem under  Section 304 Part-II read<br \/>\nwith Section  149 IPC.\tDifferent sentences were imposed. It<br \/>\nis against  this judgment  that appeal\tby special leave has<br \/>\nbeen filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case  of the  prosecution was\tthat prior  to\t21st<br \/>\nSeptember, 1979, the date of the incident, construction of a<br \/>\nroad from  Kareli to  Baghwar had  commenced. The contractor<br \/>\nfor the work was one Jethabhai (CW-1). The construction work<br \/>\nwas being  done near  the huts\tof Hari\t Ram  and  Sukh\t Ram<br \/>\n(father of  Sushilabai PW-3).  As there\t were disputes\twith<br \/>\nregard to  the location\t of the road in the village, opinion<br \/>\nof the\tmembers of the Gram Panchayat had been sought by the<br \/>\ncontractor a  couple of\t days earlier.\tOne opinion was that<br \/>\nthe road  should pass near the huts of Hari Ram and Sukh Ram<br \/>\nwhich  would  involve  damaging\t their\thuts  and,  to\tthis<br \/>\nproposal, the  deceased Deokaran  Singh was  opposed. It  is<br \/>\nalleged\t that  on  the\tmorning\t of  21st  September,  1979,<br \/>\nDeokaran Singh had protested against the construction of the<br \/>\nroad which  would result  in the  damage to  the huts of the<br \/>\npoormen and,  therefore,  the  work  appears  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\ndeferred. Later\t that day  at about  5 p.m.  Deokaran  Singh<br \/>\nagain passed  that way and he found that the construction of<br \/>\nthe road  had begun in a manner which would adversely affect<br \/>\nthe huts  of Hari  Ram and  Sukh Ram. He again protested. It<br \/>\nwas then  that a  number of persons assaulted Deokaran Singh<br \/>\nwith pick-axe,\taxe and\t spade etc.  which  implements\twere<br \/>\nbeing  used  in\t the  construction  work  and  were  readily<br \/>\navailable at  the spot, thereby causing injuries to Deokaran<br \/>\nSingh which led to his death on the spot.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to  the prosecution  when Deokaran  Singh had<br \/>\nopposed the  construction of the road and the contractor not<br \/>\nhaving agreed to the construction in view of the opposition,<br \/>\nthe appellants\tthemselves had\tcommenced  the\tconstruction<br \/>\nwork. When Deokaran Singh had appeared on the scene at about<br \/>\n5 p.m.\tand had\t protested, then  Appellant No.5  &#8211; Inder is<br \/>\nalleged to  have called\t out to\t kick Deokaran\tSingh in the<br \/>\nface and  this was  followed by an assault on Deokaran Singh<br \/>\nby all\tthe appellants headed by Harnam Singh-Appellant No.1<br \/>\nwho gave  the first  blow with\ta pick-axe  on the  head  of<br \/>\nDeokaran Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>     According to  the prosecution the eye-witnesses to this<br \/>\nincident were  Trilok Singh  (PW-1), Sushilabai (PW-3), Daya<br \/>\nRam (PW-4), Rajindra Singh (PW-5) and Devi Singh (PW-7). The<br \/>\nfirst information  report was  lodged by Trilok Singh (PW-1)<br \/>\nat 6.00\t p.m. on  that very evening at Police Station Kareli<br \/>\nwherein all  the appellants  herein were named as assailants<br \/>\nof his\tfather\tDeokaran  Singh.  The  prosecution  did\t not<br \/>\nexamine Jethabhai  as its  witness but\tduring the course of<br \/>\nthe trial the court itself examined the contractor-Jethabhai<br \/>\n(CW-1) as  a court witness since his presence at the time of<br \/>\nthe incident was admitted by all concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants  herein mainly  disputed the identity of<br \/>\nthe culprits.  The fact that Deokaran Singh was assaulted on<br \/>\n21st September,\t 1979, and the place of the incident and the<br \/>\nnature of  his injuries\t were not in dispute. Appellant No.3<br \/>\nNarendra Singh\tin fact\t stated that  he was  present in the<br \/>\nvillage and had heard about the murder of Deokaran Singh and<br \/>\nhe had\tgone to\t the Police Station Kareli to make a report,<br \/>\neven though  he himself\t was  not  there  at  the  place  of<br \/>\noccurrence. Appellant  No.3 is\tstated to  have found Trilok<br \/>\nSingh (PW-1)  and his  doctor brother  at the Police Station<br \/>\nKareli when  they had  come to\treport the incident. All the<br \/>\nappellants denied any participation in the incident and they<br \/>\nalleged\t that\tthey  had   falsely  been   implicated.\t The<br \/>\nappellants examined  one Dharamvir  (DW-1) in  their defence<br \/>\nwho was\t alleged to  be a partner of Jethabhai (CW-1) in the<br \/>\ncontract and  was  stated  to  be  an  eye-witness  to\tthis<br \/>\nincident. The  said DW-1  claimed that\the had\tcome to\t the<br \/>\ncourt on  his own  on hearing of the case and he stated that<br \/>\nhe did\tnot disclose  to anyone,  before  appearing  in\t the<br \/>\ncourt, that  he was  an eye-witness.  According to Dharamvir<br \/>\nthe  assailants\t  were\tunknown\t persons  from\tamongst\t the<br \/>\nlabourers who  were doing  the\tconstruction  work  and\t the<br \/>\nappellants were not the assailants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     While  acquitting\t the  appellants,  the\ttrial  court<br \/>\nprimarily relied  upon the  testimony of Dharamvir (DW-1) by<br \/>\ntreating him  to be  an eye-witness  and had also taken into<br \/>\naccount the  part of  the case\tdiary statement of Jethabhai<br \/>\n(CW-1)\twhich\the  had\t  denied  making  at  any  time,  as<br \/>\nsubstantive evidence,  to hold\tthat  the  identity  of\t the<br \/>\nassailants was\tunknown. The  testimony of the eye-witnesses<br \/>\nwas rejected  by the  trial court as being unreliable mainly<br \/>\non the\tground that  their version about the identity of the<br \/>\nassailants was\tin conflict  with the testimony of Dharamvir<br \/>\nand the case diary statement of Jethabhai.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court,  as  already  observed,  examined\t the<br \/>\nentire\tevidence   and\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nacquittal of  the appellants  was perverse  and the same was<br \/>\nset  aside   because,  according  to  the  High\t Court,\t the<br \/>\nconclusion which had been reached by the trial court was not<br \/>\nat all\tplausible in the light of the over-whelming evidence<br \/>\nagainst the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court<br \/>\nrecorded that  the counsel  for the  appellants had  himself<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the testimony of Jethabhai (CW-1) and had<br \/>\nconceded that  his testimony could not be rejected. The High<br \/>\nCourt observed\tthat in\t view of  this Appellant No.1-Harnam<br \/>\nSingh, who was specifically named by Jethabhai, he could not<br \/>\nbe acquitted  and that\tJethabhai&#8217;s version  was  consistent<br \/>\nwith the  testimony of\tother eye-witnesses  examined by the<br \/>\nprosecution for\t the purpose  of fixing\t the identity of the<br \/>\nother assailants, whom Jethabhai could not specifically name<br \/>\neven though  he identified  them by  face in  the court. The<br \/>\nHigh Court  also came to the conclusion that the evidence of<br \/>\nthe other  eye-witnesses was  reliable and that Trilok Singh<br \/>\n(PW-1), who  was the  son of the deceased and had lodged the<br \/>\nfirst information  report, was\ta witness  to the  incident.<br \/>\nWhile taking  into account  the evidence of Dr. Chouhan (PW-\n<\/p>\n<p>6), with  regard to  the nature\t of injuries, the High Court<br \/>\nconsidered it  safer to hold that the offence which had been<br \/>\nmade out  fell under  section 304,  Part II,  I.P.C. and not<br \/>\nunder section  302 I.P.C. Consequently, while convicting the<br \/>\nappellants  herein,   Harnam  Singh-Appellant\tNo.1,  Anil-<br \/>\nAppellant No.4\tand Seth-Appellant  No.7 were each sentenced<br \/>\nto seven  years rigorous  imprisonment because\tHarnam Singh<br \/>\nhad inflicted  the first blow with a pick-axe on the head of<br \/>\nthe deceased  and the  Appellant No.4 and Appellant No.7 had<br \/>\ninflicted blows\t on the\t neck with axe. The other appellants<br \/>\nwere each sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As in  the High  Court, the  only contention  which has<br \/>\nbeen raised  by Mr.  U.R. Lalit,  learned senior counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellants,\t is  that  they\t were  not  the\t assailants.<br \/>\nAccording to the learned counsel it is because of the enmity<br \/>\nbetween the parties, namely, the appellants and Trilok Singh<br \/>\n(PW-1) that  the appellants  have wrongly  been\t accused  of<br \/>\nhaving committed  a crime. The appellants, it was submitted,<br \/>\nwere not  present at  the scene\t of  the  incident.  It\t was<br \/>\nfurther contended  that the  trial court  had dealt with the<br \/>\ntestimony of  each of the witnesses very elaborately and had<br \/>\ngiven cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that their<br \/>\ntestimony could not be believed. With regard to the evidence<br \/>\nof Jethabhai,  it was  argued that  his evidence was suspect<br \/>\nand, in\t any case,  section 149 I.P.C. was not applicable on<br \/>\nthe facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t our  opinion,\tthe  well  considered  and  reasoned<br \/>\njudgment of  the High  Court calls  for no interference. The<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellants  had,  before  the\tHigh  Court,<br \/>\nconceded that the testimony of Jethabhai (CW-1) could not be<br \/>\nrejected. Faced\t with this  difficulty, Mr.  Lalit contended<br \/>\nthat Jethabhai, at best, had only identified Harnam Singh as<br \/>\none of the assailants and the evidence of Jethabhai does not<br \/>\nshow that  Trilok Singh\t (PW-1) was  present at\t the time of<br \/>\nincident and, therefore, he could not be regarded as an eye-<br \/>\nwitness.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Jethabhai (CW-1)  had stated  that\t except\t for  Harnam<br \/>\nSingh, whom  he had  known earlier,  he had  seen the  other<br \/>\nappellants only\t on the date of incident. In his evidence he<br \/>\nstated that on 21st September, 1979, he had gone to the site<br \/>\nof construction\t at about  4.00 P.M.  or 4.30 P.M. by motor-<br \/>\ncycle. He  saw the  work was  in progress  but none  of\t his<br \/>\nlabourers were\tworking\t there.\t There\twere  six  or  eight<br \/>\npersons who  were working,  out of which he knew only Harnam<br \/>\nSingh. He  further stated that six to seven persons who were<br \/>\ndigging the  soil pounced  upon deceased  and assaulted him.<br \/>\nThereupon, he  got frightened and pulled his son and mounted<br \/>\non his\tmotor-cycle and\t set-forth  to\tKareli.\t He  further<br \/>\nstated that  he went  to the dispensary of the deceased son,<br \/>\nwho was a doctor, and when he was informing about the fight,<br \/>\nTrilok Singh  (PW-1) came  there and  told his\tbrother, the<br \/>\ndoctor, that  the appellants  had killed  their\t father.  In<br \/>\nanswer to  a question  by the  public  prosecutor  Jethabhai<br \/>\nstated &#8220;Today  I can  say that those accused who are present<br \/>\nin the\tcourt they  had\t assaulted  Babulal.  I\t have  heard<br \/>\nBabulal&#8217;s name only to be Babulal not any other&#8221;. It appears<br \/>\nthat Babulal  was the other or common name of Deokaran Singh<br \/>\nas the\twitness has  specifically stated  that\the  was\t the<br \/>\nfather of  Trilok Singh (PW-1) and it is not in dispute that<br \/>\nTrilok Singh is the son of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In view  of the  aforesaid testimony,  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nrightly came  to the  conclusion that  the same corroborated<br \/>\nthe evidence  of Trilok\t Singh (PW-1)  because, according to<br \/>\nJethabhai, when\t he was at the dispensary of deceased&#8217;s son,<br \/>\nTrilok Singh  had come\tin and had informed his brother that<br \/>\ntheir father  had been\tkilled. From  this  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nconcluded, and\tin our\topinion correctly, that Trilok Singh<br \/>\nknew about  the death  of his  father and that knowledge was<br \/>\nnot acquired  from Jethabhai,  as was sought to be contended<br \/>\nby the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  referred to  the evidence of Jethabhai in some<br \/>\ndetail in  order to  satisfy ourselves\tthat the  conclusion<br \/>\narrived at  by the  High Court,\t which was hearing an appeal<br \/>\nagainst acquittal,  does not  suffer from  any infirmity. We<br \/>\nhave also  examined the statements of other witnesses and of<br \/>\nSushilabai (PW-3)  in particular  in whose  land the alleged<br \/>\ndigging was  taking place and who had clearly identified the<br \/>\nappellants in  her testimony  and we  find that there was no<br \/>\nreason as  to why the eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution<br \/>\nshould have  been disbelieved.\tThe High  Court has  rightly<br \/>\nnoticed that  the first\t information report  was lodged very<br \/>\npromptly and  the names\t of the\t appellants  were  mentioned<br \/>\ntherein as assailants. We are in complete agreement with the<br \/>\nHigh  Court   that  the\t  identity  of\tthe  assailants\t was<br \/>\nestablished and\t that it  is the  appellants herein  who had<br \/>\ninflicted the injuries on Deokaran Singh alias Babulal which<br \/>\nhad resulted in his death.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The conviction under section 304 Part II I.P.C. and the<br \/>\nsentences imposed  upon the appellants by the High Court are<br \/>\nupheld and  this appeal is dismissed. The accused who are on<br \/>\nbail will now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the<br \/>\nrequisite sentences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 Equivalent citations: JT 1995 (9), 178 1995 SCALE (7)127 Author: K B.N. Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J) PETITIONER: HARNAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1995 BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) [&hellip;]<\/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-108138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-21T00:01:22+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-21T00:01:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\"},\"wordCount\":2110,\"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\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\",\"name\":\"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-21T00:01:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-21T00:01:22+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995","datePublished":"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-21T00:01:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995"},"wordCount":2110,"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\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995","name":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-21T00:01:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harnam-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-12-december-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harnam Singh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 1995"}]},{"@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\/108138","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=108138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}