{"id":112673,"date":"2009-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-08T15:03:10","modified_gmt":"2018-11-08T09:33:10","slug":"fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                  -1-\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n               CHANDIGARH\n\n                                     Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008\n                                     Date of Decision:- 2nd .09.2009\n\nFauja Singh and others                     ....Petitioner(s)\n\n                  vs.\n\nState of Punjab                            ....Respondent(s)\n\n                  ***\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH\n\n                   ***\nPresent:-   Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate,\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.\n\n                  ***\n\nAUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            In the present petition, challenge is to order dated 14.8.2008<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, framing charge under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
            Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR no.183 dated<\/p>\n
18.12.2007 under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC came to be registered<\/p>\n
against the petitioners at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala.<\/p>\n
This FIR came into existence on the statement of Balwinder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Surjit Singh wherein he alleged that on 10.12.2007 at about 4.00 P.M.,<\/p>\n
petitioner No.2 Kuldeep Singh armed with Datar, petitioner No.3-Jasvir<\/p>\n
Singh armed with Sota and Kashmir Singh @ Lalli armed with Sota along<\/p>\n
with their wives, namely, Rajwinder Kaur wife of Kuldeep Singh, Rani<\/p>\n
wife of Kashmir Singh and Amandeep Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh carrying<\/p>\n
Sotas came from their house in the fields of Surjit Singh along with
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant Balwinder Singh and their servant Mahimanand where they<\/p>\n
were cutting their crop. Fauja Singh raised a Lalkara and Kuldeep Singh<\/p>\n
inflicted first blow upon the father of the complainant, namely, Surjit Singh<\/p>\n
who raised his right arm for saving the blow and in that process, the blow<\/p>\n
hit his right hand’s back side. Kashmir Singh then inflicted a Sota blow<\/p>\n
which hit Surjit Singh on the right elbow. Then the complainant raised<\/p>\n
noise and the persons who were passing on the road, namely, Bakhtawar<\/p>\n
Singh and Joga Singh son of Balbir Singh reached the spot and in their view<\/p>\n
Jasvir Singh inflicted a Sota blow upon Surjit Singh which landed on his<\/p>\n
left elbow due to which he fell down. While he was lying on the ground, all<\/p>\n
three wives of the accused inflicted Sota blows upon Surjit Singh which<\/p>\n
landed on his buttocks and other parts of the body. On hearing the noise<\/p>\n
being raised by the complainant, the villagers and neighbours got attracted<\/p>\n
to the spot, whereafter all the accused ran away from there with their<\/p>\n
respective weapons. Surjit Singh was then taken to Civil Hospital, Dhilwan<\/p>\n
and got admitted. He remained in the hospital and his medical examination<\/p>\n
was got conducted and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital. At<\/p>\n
that time, no FIR or DDR was lodged with the police and the explanation<\/p>\n
which has been given for non-recording of the FIR is that the neighbours<\/p>\n
and villagers of the village were intervening for a compromise between the<\/p>\n
parties. Surjit Singh (father of the complainant) died on 18.12.2007 and<\/p>\n
only then the present FIR was got registered by the complainant. The post-<\/p>\n
mortem on the dead body of Surjit Singh was got conducted wherein it was<\/p>\n
mentioned that the cause of death would be given after the receipt of report<\/p>\n
of the Chemical Examiner and HPE Report and Heart from Pathology<\/p>\n
Department of the Medical College, Amritsar.         The post-mortem was
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
conducted on 18.12.2007 itself. On conclusion of investigation, challan<\/p>\n
was presented against Fauja Singh and Kuldeep Singh.             Thereafter, a<\/p>\n
supplementary challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in Court on<\/p>\n
7.3.2008 in which third accused, Jasvir Singh, was also named. As per the<\/p>\n
said supplementary challan, Joginder Kaur wife of Fauja Singh, Rajwinder<\/p>\n
Kaur wife of Kuldeep Singh, Rani wife of Kashmir Singh and Amandeep<\/p>\n
Kaur wife of Jasvir Singh and Kashmir Singh son of Fauja Singh were<\/p>\n
found innocent and Fauja Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Jasvir Singh were<\/p>\n
found involved in the brawl. On consideration of the initial challan and the<\/p>\n
supplementary challan, learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, framed charge<\/p>\n
against the accused-petitioners under Section 302 IPC vide order dated<\/p>\n
14.8.2008 which is under challenge in the present petition.<\/p>\n
              Counsel for the petitioners contends that the charge framed<\/p>\n
against the petitioners is not sustainable as offence under Section 302 IPC is<\/p>\n
not made out even on the face of         the evidence so produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution before the Court. He submits that firstly, there is a delay of 8<\/p>\n
days in registering the FIR as the incident is of 10.12.2007 while the FIR<\/p>\n
was registered on 18.12.2007.        He further submits that the medical<\/p>\n
examination of the deceased Surjit Singh was conducted on 10.12.2007<\/p>\n
when he was admitted at Civil Hospital, Dhilwan.          The Medico Legal<\/p>\n
Report (Annexure P-1) indicates that all the injuries found on the person of<\/p>\n
the deceased were simple in nature. As per the MLR, injury No.1 was<\/p>\n
found to have been by a sharp edged weapon while injuries No.2,3 and 4<\/p>\n
were found to have been caused with a blunt weapon. All the injuries were<\/p>\n
kept under observation for which a medical report was sought and on<\/p>\n
receipt of the said report, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature.
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Counsel submits that as per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Annexure<\/p>\n
P-4) no poison had been detected and according to the report (Annexure P-<\/p>\n
5) in regard to the Pathology examination of the heart of the deceased,<\/p>\n
Surjit Singh, Myocardium showed no pathology and left coronary artery<\/p>\n
shown narrowing of its lumer with thickened calcified atherosclerotic wall.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the said report, the doctor who had conducted the post-<\/p>\n
mortem gave a final report declaring the cause of death as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “After going through both the above mentioned reports,<\/p>\n
            pathological report and heart which shows that left coronary<\/p>\n
            artery narrowing of its lumen with thickened and calcified<\/p>\n
            athero sclerotic wall, is suggestion of fact that death in this<\/p>\n
            case may be due to sudden cardiac death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Counsel on the basis of the afore-stated evidence submits that<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out as the deceased had<\/p>\n
died after 8 days of the occurrence and that too, not because of the injuries<\/p>\n
stated to have been inflicted upon him by the petitioners. He submits that<\/p>\n
only offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC can be said to have been<\/p>\n
prima facie made out against the petitioners and, therefore, the charge under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC framed against them by the learned Sessions Judge vide<\/p>\n
order dated 14.8.2008 is not sustainable. He submits that the ingredients for<\/p>\n
an offence of murder as has been defined under Section 300 IPC are not<\/p>\n
made out from the material which has been brought on record and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the test as laid down under Section 227\/228 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC is not<\/p>\n
fulfilled. He further submits that no sufficient evidence for proceeding
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                  -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
against the accused and charging them under Section 302 IPC is available<\/p>\n
on the record which would sustain the order of charge framed under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned order deserves to be<\/p>\n
set aside. His further contention is that the challan which was initially<\/p>\n
presented against Fauja Singh and Kuldeep Singh was merely on the basis<\/p>\n
of the post-mortem examination conducted on the body of the deceased<\/p>\n
Surjit Singh and on the basis of the statement of the complainant and other<\/p>\n
witnesses. However, supplementary challan which has been presented by<\/p>\n
the police on completion of the investigation wherein the report of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner and the report of the Pathology examination of the heart<\/p>\n
of the deceased Surjit Singh as also the final report declaring the cause of<\/p>\n
death by the Doctor who had conducted the post-portem on the deceased<\/p>\n
had been taken into consideration and on that basis it has been clearly stated<\/p>\n
that offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out and instead offence<\/p>\n
under Section 324\/323 IPC is made out and, therefore, challan has been<\/p>\n
presented under these sections. He submits that when the prosecution itself<\/p>\n
is accepting this position, the Court should not have proceeded to charge the<\/p>\n
petitioners under Section 302 IPC. For the broad principles which are to be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration by the Court at the time of framing of the charge,<\/p>\n
he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohan Lal Soni,<\/a> 2000(3) RCR 452 and<\/p>\n
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra,<\/a> 2008(2) RCR<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 896. On the basis of these judgments, counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained and deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submits
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                  -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the learned Sessions Judge while framing the charge was not bound by<\/p>\n
the challan which had been presented by the prosecution wherein it has<\/p>\n
given an opinion with regard to the offences committed by the accused. He<\/p>\n
submits that it is only on consideration of the material so placed before it,<\/p>\n
the learned Court below prima facie, has come to a conclusion that which<\/p>\n
offence has been committed by the accused and accordingly, has framed<\/p>\n
charge for that offence. He, on this basis, supports the order passed by the<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, which has been impugned herein.<\/p>\n
            I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the<\/p>\n
records of the case. The broad parameters which the Court has to take into<\/p>\n
consideration while framing the charge have been culled out by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Soni’s case (supra) which can be<\/p>\n
stated hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             (i) Court has to prima facie consider whether there is<\/p>\n
             sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – Court<\/p>\n
             is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether<\/p>\n
             materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the<\/p>\n
             accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) Court is required to evaluate the material and documents<\/p>\n
             on record with a view of finding out if the facts emerging<\/p>\n
             therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of all<\/p>\n
             the ingredients constituting the offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iii) Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it<\/p>\n
             cannot be expected even at initial stage to accept all that the<\/p>\n
             prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                  -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
             common sense or broad probabilities of the case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (iv) Sessions judge is not expected to hold a roving enquiry<\/p>\n
             into the pros and cons of the case at the stage of framing<\/p>\n
             charges by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the<\/p>\n
             trial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (v) If the evidence which the prosecution possesses to prove<\/p>\n
             the guilt, even if fully accepted without rebuttal, cannot show<\/p>\n
             that accused committed the particular offence, then charge<\/p>\n
             can be quashed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish<\/p>\n
Joshi’s case (supra) has in paras 14 and 15 held as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “14. Chapter XVIII of the code lays down the procedure for<\/p>\n
            trial before the court of Sessions, pursuant to an order of<\/p>\n
            commitment under Sections 209 of the Code.          Section 227<\/p>\n
            contemplates the circumstances whereunder there could be a<\/p>\n
            discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to<\/p>\n
            framing of charge under Section 228. It provides that upon<\/p>\n
            consideration of the record of the case, the documents<\/p>\n
            submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused<\/p>\n
            and the prosecution, the Court is expected, nay bound to<\/p>\n
            decide whether there is “sufficient ground” to proceed against<\/p>\n
            the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the<\/p>\n
            accused or proceed to frame charge against him.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            15.It is trite that the words “not sufficient ground for<\/p>\n
               proceeding against the accused” appearing in the Section
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
               postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge<\/p>\n
               to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case<\/p>\n
               for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in<\/p>\n
               assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh<\/p>\n
               the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether<\/p>\n
               or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made<\/p>\n
               out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon<\/p>\n
               the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible<\/p>\n
               nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application.<\/p>\n
               By and large, however, if two views are equally possible<\/p>\n
               and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before<\/p>\n
               him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave<\/p>\n
               suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the<\/p>\n
               accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial<\/p>\n
               will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is<\/p>\n
               whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a<\/p>\n
               conviction reasonably possible.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Having broadly understood the above parameters, it is now<\/p>\n
proposed to decide and evaluate and weight the submissions made by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner. There can be no dispute with regard to the<\/p>\n
presentation of the challan. The opinion expressed by the police in its<\/p>\n
report has no binding effect on the Court. The Court has to form its own<\/p>\n
independent opinion on the basis of the material produced before it by the<\/p>\n
police. There is no obligation on the Court to accept the report if it does not<\/p>\n
agree with the opinion formed by the police. The power to take cognizance,
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
notwithstanding the formation of opinion by the police, ultimately vests<\/p>\n
with the Court. Therefore, merely because a supplementary challan has<\/p>\n
been presented by the police where it is stated that no offence under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC is made out against the accused, would not in itself be sufficient to<\/p>\n
come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Court framing the charge<\/p>\n
is not sustainable. However, the sufficiency of the grounds for proceeding<\/p>\n
against the accused primarily and thereafter by weighing and sifting the<\/p>\n
material which has been produced before the Court, to find out whether a<\/p>\n
prima facie case against the accused has been made out for an offence for<\/p>\n
which the accused is to be charged, would be open for the Court to consider<\/p>\n
and come to a definite conclusion. The Court is not required to evaluate the<\/p>\n
material and the documents which have been brought on record in such a<\/p>\n
manner so as to find out the sufficiency of evidence or otherwise for<\/p>\n
convicting the accused. What is, therefore, required is that even if the<\/p>\n
material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is taken on its<\/p>\n
face value as it is, all ingredients constituting the offence are present and in<\/p>\n
existence. If this test is cleared, the charge framed by the Court for a<\/p>\n
particular offence would be fully justified and would not call for any<\/p>\n
interference.    However, if the       evidence which the prosecution has<\/p>\n
produced on record to prove the guilt against the accused, even if `fully<\/p>\n
accepted without any ifs and buts cannot show that the accused committed<\/p>\n
that particular offence, then the charge deserves to be quashed. At the<\/p>\n
stage of consideration for framing of the charge, it is not to be seen as to<\/p>\n
whether the trial will end into conviction or not but if a prima facie case for<\/p>\n
an offence against the accused is made out for which the charge has been<\/p>\n
framed and there is reasonable possibility of his conviction for the said
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                 -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
offence then no interference with the charge framed by the Court is called<\/p>\n
for.\n<\/p>\n
            In the present case, the injuries which are alleged to have been<\/p>\n
inflicted by the petitioners have been found to be all simple in nature. They<\/p>\n
are all on the non-vital parts of the body. The deceased was admitted in<\/p>\n
hospital on 10.12.2007 and thereafter, was discharged from there.         He<\/p>\n
remained in his house and died after 8 days. The report of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner does not indicate any poison and the report of the Pathology of<\/p>\n
heart of deceased Surjit Singh clearly indicate that he was suffering from a<\/p>\n
heart disease as left coronary artery shows narrowing of its lumer with<\/p>\n
thickened calcified atherosclerotic wall and thereafter the final report<\/p>\n
declaring the cause of death by the Doctor, who has conducted the post-<\/p>\n
mortem report which has been reproduced above, clearly suggests that the<\/p>\n
cause of death may be due to sudden cardiac arrest. All the injuries being<\/p>\n
simple in nature, the period of death being after eight days from the date of<\/p>\n
the occurrence, the medical report showing a heart disease of the deceased<\/p>\n
and then the opinion of the doctor going on to show that the death of the<\/p>\n
deceased could not be related to the incident especially when no poison had<\/p>\n
been found in the report of the Chemical Examiner, the ingredients of<\/p>\n
murder as defined in Section 300 IPC are not made out from the material so<\/p>\n
produced on record by the prosecution for consideration of the Court. That<\/p>\n
being so, the charge under Section 302 IPC framed against the petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Kapurthala, framing charge against the petitioners-accused and the<\/p>\n
charge-sheet are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the Court below
\n Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008                                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
            The criminal revision petition stands allowed with the above<\/p>\n
directions and observations.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 2nd , 2009                 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )\npoonam                                         JUDGE\n\n\n\nWhether referred to Reporters              Yes\/No.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1959 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 2nd .09.2009 Fauja Singh and others ….Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ….Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-08T09:33:10+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T09:33:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2864,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-08T09:33:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-08T09:33:10+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T09:33:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009"},"wordCount":2864,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009","name":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-08T09:33:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/fauja-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fauja Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112673","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=112673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}