{"id":116450,"date":"1993-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993"},"modified":"2015-08-28T00:53:36","modified_gmt":"2015-08-27T19:23:36","slug":"amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","title":{"rendered":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC,   Supl.  (1) 320<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nAMRIK SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nSINGH N.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 320\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t   ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   There  are four appellants, namely, Amrik Singh  (A-1),<br \/>\nAjaib  Singh  (A2), Jit Singh (A-4) and Kewal  Singh  (A-6).<br \/>\nThey  along  with  four\t others\t were  tried  for   offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 148, 302, 325, 324, 352 read\twith<br \/>\nSection\t 149  IPC.  The trial court convicted all  of  them.<br \/>\nThe  trial  court acquitted them of the\t murder\t charge\t but<br \/>\nconvicted  Amrik  Singh\t (A-1) under  Section  325  IPC\t and<br \/>\nsentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a\tfine<br \/>\nof Rs 500.  Ajaib Singh (A-2) is convicted under Section 324<br \/>\nIPC  and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to  pay  a<br \/>\nfine of Rs 250.\t Jit Singh (A-4) is convicted under  Section<br \/>\n325 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay<br \/>\na  fine\t of Rs 500.  Kewal Singh (A-6)\tis  convicted  under<br \/>\nSection 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years\t and<br \/>\nto pay a fine of Rs 1000.  The appeal preferred by them\t was<br \/>\ndismissed  by the High Court.  Hence this appeal.  The\tcase<br \/>\nrelates to an occurrence which took place on June 2, 1979 at<br \/>\nabout  8  p.m. in Village Kotla in Faridkot  District.\t The<br \/>\naccused,  the material witnesses and the  deceased,  Amarjit<br \/>\nSingh,\tbelonged  to  the same village.\t  According  to\t the<br \/>\nprosecution, there was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">321<\/span><br \/>\nenmity between the prosecution party and the accused  party.<br \/>\nOn the day of occurrence at about 8 p.m. Mukhtiar Singh\t (PW\n<\/p>\n<p>11)  and  his brother Pritam Singh (PW 12) were\t present  in<br \/>\ntheir house situated on the circular path of Village  Kotla.<br \/>\nKewal Singh, Ajaib Singh and Amrik Singh accused came  there<br \/>\narmed  with gandasas and dang and started abusing PW II\t and<br \/>\nPW  12.\t Pritam Singh armed with a sela and  Mukhtiar  Singh<br \/>\narmed  with  a\tdang came out and protested as\tto  why\t the<br \/>\naccused were abusing them.  Then a quarrel ensued and it  is<br \/>\nstated\tthat in the meantime the other accused\talso  joined<br \/>\nthem armed with various weapons and Ajaib Singh exhorted his<br \/>\ncompanions to attack the deceased.  So saying, he opened the<br \/>\nattack and dealt a gandasa blow from the reverse side on the<br \/>\nhead  of  Mukhtiar Singh.  Amrik Singh gave a  gandasa\tblow<br \/>\nfrom the sharp side on the left shoulder of Pritam Singh (PW\n<\/p>\n<p>12).  Jit Singh inflicted a gandasa blow from its sharp side<br \/>\non the left shoulder of Pritam Singh and Kewal Singh  struck<br \/>\na  gandasa blow from its sharp side on the head\t of  Amarjit<br \/>\nSingh, deceased.  During the same occurrence, it is  alleged<br \/>\nthat Madan Singh (A-5) dealt a blow on PW 13 and Kewal Singh<br \/>\n(A-6)  gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side on his  head.<br \/>\nAjaib  Singh  and Jit Singh gave one gandasa  blow  each  to<br \/>\nSadhu  Singh  (PW 15) and the accused are  alleged  to\thave<br \/>\ndealt some more blows on these witnesses.  The further\tcase<br \/>\nis that during the course of the same occurrence, PW 11\t and<br \/>\nPW  12,\t by  way of self-defence caused\t injuries  to  Ajaib<br \/>\nSingh,\tDarshan\t Singh and Amrik Singh.\t The  accused  after<br \/>\ncausing the injuries left the place with their weapons.\t  PW<br \/>\n11  and\t PW 12 along with other\t injured  persons  including<br \/>\ndeceased  Amarjit  Singh were shifted to  Civil\t Dispensary,<br \/>\nBaghapurana.   They  were examined by the  doctor.   As\t the<br \/>\ncondition of the deceased and others was serious, they\twere<br \/>\nreferred  to  C.M.C.  &amp; Hospital,  Ludhiana.   The  deceased<br \/>\nAmarjit\t Singh was examined by PW 18 and was treated but  he<br \/>\ndied on June 5, 1979 at 10.30 p.m. The other injured persons<br \/>\nwere  also  treated and X-rayed.  The injured  accused\twere<br \/>\nalso  examined by the doctor and on Amrik Singh (A-1)  there<br \/>\nwere 12 injuries including some incised wounds.\t Ajaib Singh<br \/>\nhad  7 injuries including incised wounds and  Darshan  Singh<br \/>\naccused\t also had 7 injuries.  Inquest was held on the\tdead<br \/>\nbody of Amarjit Singh and the same was sent for\t postmortem.<br \/>\nPW 19, Dr Parmodh Kumar, who conducted the postmortem  found<br \/>\na  lacerated  wound on the scalp and incised wounds  on\t the<br \/>\nfront  area of the head.  He also found that the  blood\t was<br \/>\nclotted.  He opined that the injuries were sufficient in the<br \/>\nordinary course of nature to cause death.  After  completion<br \/>\nof the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.  The\tplea<br \/>\nof the accused has been that the deceased and his companions<br \/>\nwere  aggressors  and  inflicted  injuries  on\tthe  accused<br \/>\npersons and they in exercise of their right of\tself-defence<br \/>\ninflicted injuries on the deceased as well as the PWs.\t The<br \/>\ntrial  court  after due consideration of the  evidence\theld<br \/>\nthat   the  time  and  place  of  the  occurrence  and\t the<br \/>\nparticipation  of  both sides in the occurrence\t is  not  in<br \/>\ndispute\t and that the circumstances would indicate  that  it<br \/>\nwas  a\tcase  of  free\tfight  and  therefore  each  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants would be liable for his individual acts.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   So far as the attack on the deceased is concerned,\t the<br \/>\ntrial\tcourt  held  that  the\tdoctor\tcould  not  give   a<br \/>\nsatisfactory  answer  whether the two injuries on  his\thead<br \/>\nindividually  were  sufficient\tin the\tordinary  course  of<br \/>\nnature\tto cause death and, when the lacerated injury  which<br \/>\nproved\tto  be fatal was not attributed to any\tone  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  and,  therefore,  the other\t injury\t which\twere<br \/>\nattributed to Kewal Singh cannot by itself be sufficient  in<br \/>\nthe ordinary course of nature to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">322<\/span><br \/>\ncause  death and in that view of the matter convicted  Kewal<br \/>\nSingh under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo  RI<br \/>\nfor 7 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   So\t far  as the other three appellants  are  concerned,<br \/>\nthey  are  convicted for their individual acts\tfor  causing<br \/>\ninjuries  to  Pritam Singh and Sadhu Singh.   The  remaining<br \/>\nfour  accused were also convicted under Section 323 IPC\t but<br \/>\nthey  were released on probation of good conduct.  The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt, however, confirmed the convictions and sentences.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In\t this appeal Mr U.R. Lalit, learned senior  counsel,<br \/>\nsubmits\t that  this is a clear case where the  accused\twere<br \/>\nentitled   to  right  of  self-defence\tand   the   evidence<br \/>\nsufficiently  indicates that the prosecution party  was\t the<br \/>\naggressor  and\tat any rate the version put forward  by\t the<br \/>\ndefence\t looks more probable and in these  circumstances  of<br \/>\nthe case, all the accused should have been given benefit  of<br \/>\ndoubt.\tHe also submits that Kewal Singh (A-6) is alleged to<br \/>\nhave inflicted only one incised injury whereas the  evidence<br \/>\nis  that  apart from him Amrik Singh (A-1) is said  to\thave<br \/>\ninflicted  an incised injury but the medical  evidence\tsays<br \/>\nthat  there  is\t only  one incised  injury  and\t in  such  a<br \/>\nsituation  Kewal Singh alone cannot be held responsible\t for<br \/>\nthe  said  incised  injury and\tconsequently  he  cannot  be<br \/>\nconvicted  for inflicting that injury.\tWe see no  force  in<br \/>\nthis submission.  The evidence of Mukhtiar Singh (PW-11)  is<br \/>\ncorroborated by the first information report given by him in<br \/>\nwhich he categorically mentioned that it is only Kewal Singh<br \/>\nwho inflicted the incised injury and there is no mention  of<br \/>\nparticipation  by Amrik Singh.\tIt is only during the  trial<br \/>\nthat  the witness has improved but that by itself is  not  a<br \/>\nground\tto  hold  that Kewal Singh  had\t not  inflicted\t the<br \/>\nincised injury.\t The other submission is that Jit Singh\t (A-\n<\/p>\n<p>4)  was\t not  in the company of other accused  but  he\tonly<br \/>\njoined\tthem  later, therefore, he cannot be  held  to\thave<br \/>\nparticipated  in  the  free fight and it could\tbe  that  in<br \/>\nexercise  of right of private defence, namely, to  save\t the<br \/>\nco-accused  from  being attacked by the deceased  party,  he<br \/>\ninflicted injuries.  So far as his case is concerned that he<br \/>\nmust  be given the benefit of right of self-defence, we\t are<br \/>\nunable\tto  accept this contention.   The  whole  occurrence<br \/>\nstarted at the spur of moment and all the accused joined and<br \/>\nthere  was a verbal quarrel which resulted in  fighting\t and<br \/>\nall of them participated.  Therefore, the case of Jit  Singh<br \/>\ncannot be separated.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Both  the\tcourts have rightly held that the  time\t and<br \/>\nplace  of occurrence and the presence of all the accused  as<br \/>\nwell as the PWs and the deceased are not in dispute.  It was<br \/>\ncontended before both the courts below that the accused were<br \/>\nentitled  to  right of self-defence.   This  submission\t was<br \/>\nexamined by the courts below and having regard to the  facts<br \/>\nand  circumstances  particularly, that the  occurrence\ttook<br \/>\nplace  near  the house of the accused, this  plea  has\tbeen<br \/>\nrejected  and  we  see\tno ground to  come  to\ta  different<br \/>\nconclusion.   The  High Court, further held that this  is  a<br \/>\ncase  of  free fight.  In coming to such a  conclusion,\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court has taken into consideration the fact  that\t the<br \/>\naccused\t as  well as the deceased and PWs  appeared  at\t the<br \/>\nplace of occurrence armed with weapons and the quarrel\ttook<br \/>\nplace  immediately.  This is a question of fact\t which\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  warrant  any  interference.  The  question\t as  to\t who<br \/>\ncommenced it first may not be much relevant and it has\talso<br \/>\nbeen held in a number of cases that the participants  should<br \/>\nbe  liable for their individual acts.  In this view  of\t the<br \/>\nmatter, we have to examine the plea of each of the  accused.<br \/>\nWe  may, however, mention that in a case of free fight,\t the<br \/>\nquestion of unlawful assembly is not ruled out.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">323<\/span><\/p>\n<p>But  in\t arriving  at  the common  object  of  the  unlawful<br \/>\nassembly  in a free fight it cannot be held  with  certainty<br \/>\nthat  if  one of the individuals inflicts a  serious  injury<br \/>\nthen  it  would\t be a common object of all  members  of\t the<br \/>\nunlawful  assembly.   Mere formation of an assembly  with  a<br \/>\nview  to fight will be unlawful assembly but in the  instant<br \/>\ncase having regard to the convictions that have been awarded<br \/>\nwe  do not want to express any opinion whether there was  an<br \/>\nunlawful assembly as such.  We also do not have any material<br \/>\nas  to\twhat  happened to the case which was  filed  by\t the<br \/>\naccused by way of complaint.  In this view of the matter, we<br \/>\nwould  examine only the individual acts in respect of  which<br \/>\nconvictions  are recorded.  Kewal Singh (A-6)  attacked\t the<br \/>\ndeceased and inflicted an injury with a sharp-edged  weapon.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court  has  held  that  he  could  not  be\theld<br \/>\nresponsible  for the other injury which was inflicted  by  a<br \/>\nblunt weapon and which proved to be fatal.  In this view  of<br \/>\nthe matter, Kewal Singh was convicted under Section 326 IPC.<br \/>\nHaving regard to the circumstances under which free fight is<br \/>\nsaid  to  have taken place, we think the sentence  of  seven<br \/>\nyears RI is rather severe.  Coming to the other\t appellants,<br \/>\nnamely,\t Amrik\tSingh, Ajaib Singh and Jit Singh,  they\t are<br \/>\nconvicted  under Sections 325 and 324 IPC.  Amrik Singh\t and<br \/>\nAjaib  Singh  accused also received a  number  of  injuries.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  their  sentences are to be  reduced.   In\t the<br \/>\nresult, we confirm the conviction of Amrik Singh (A-1) under<br \/>\nSection\t 325 IPC but reduce the sentence to one year RI\t but<br \/>\nthe  sentence  of  fine with default  clause  is  confirmed.<br \/>\nAjaib  Singh (A-2) is convicted under Section 324 IPC  which<br \/>\nis  confirmed but sentence is reduced to six months&#8217; RI\t but<br \/>\nthe sentence of fine with default clause is confirmed.\t The<br \/>\nconviction  of\tJit  Singh (A-4) under Section\t325  IPC  is<br \/>\nconfirmed but the sentence is reduced to one year RI but the<br \/>\nsentence  of  fine with default clause\tis  confirmed.\t Now<br \/>\ncoming\tto  the case of Kewal Singh  (A-6),  his  conviction<br \/>\nunder Section 326 IPC is confirmed but his sentence of seven<br \/>\nyears&#8217;\tRI is reduced to three years RI but the fine  of  Rs<br \/>\n1000 with default clause is confirmed.\tSubject to the above<br \/>\nmodifications, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">324<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 320 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: AMRIK SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: [&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-116450","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>Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - 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\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\" \/>\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=\"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-27T19:23:36+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T19:23:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\"},\"wordCount\":1934,\"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\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\",\"name\":\"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-27T19:23:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - 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\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-27T19:23:36+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993","datePublished":"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T19:23:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993"},"wordCount":1934,"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\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993","name":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-27T19:23:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amrik-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-february-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amrik Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 1993"}]},{"@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\/116450","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=116450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}