{"id":138017,"date":"1996-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996"},"modified":"2017-05-11T11:18:03","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T05:48:03","slug":"kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (2), 344\t 1996 SCALE (2)6<\/div>\n
Author: K B.N.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKULDEEP SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/02\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nKIRPAL B.N. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (2)   344\t  1996 SCALE  (2)6\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   [With Crl. Appeal Nos. 522\/84, 660\/84, 10\/85, 133\/85]
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nKIRPAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This judgment  will dispose  of  Criminal\tAppeal\tNos.
\n238\/85, 522\/84,\t 660\/84, 10\/85\tand 133\/85  whereby the High
\nCourt partly  allowed the  appeals of  the  respondents\t and
\nconverted the conviction of the appellants who are sentenced
\nunder Section  302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. to one under
\nSection 304 Part-II read with Section 149 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     Twelve persons  were tried\t for an\t incident which\t had
\noccurred on  7.7.1982 near  Dharmashala of village Baragudha
\nat about 10 P.M. According to the F.I.R. which was lodged by
\none Munshi  Singh PW11.\t Sukhdev Singh one of the appellants
\nin  these  appeals  who\t in  the  company  with\t some  other
\nappellants went\t to the lane of Harijans in the said village
\nand fired  some shots  in the air. Accordingly, Munshi Singh
\nPW11 alongwith\tJagga Singh deceased. Teja Singh. Balkishan.
\nPrem Singh  and Chhotta\t Singh PW12  set out  for the police
\nStation Baragudha  for\treporting  this\t matter.  When\tthey
\nreached near  the Dharmashala  of the  village it is alleged
\nthat they  were confronted by Sukhdev Singh and Pritam Singh
\nwho were  armed with a gun each, Major Singh Mohinder Singh,
\nGurtej Singh  son of  Narain Singh and Amarjit Singh each of
\nwhom was  armed with a pistol as well as Kuldeep Singh, Zora
\nSingh, Gurtej  Singh son  of Pritam  Singh Munshi  Singh and
\nNaiba Singh  appellants all  armed with\t a gandasa  each and
\nkaka Singh who was armed with a lathi. The appellants raised
\na shout\t that the  Harijans be\tsuitably dealt\twith because
\nthey did  not listen to others. Thereupon it is alleged that
\nSukhdev Singh  gave a  blow with  the butt of his gun on the
\nhead of\t Munshi Singh PW11. Gurtej Singh son of Pritam Singh
\ngave a gandasa blow on the right side of Munshi Singh’s hand
\nwhile his  left hand  received a blow by a gandasa which was
\ninflicted by  Zora Singh.  Gurtej Singh\t son of Pritam Singh
\nalso gave  a gandasa blow from the reverse side on his right
\nknee and  another blow on the right shoulder and on the back
\nof Munshi Singh. Kaka Singh also gave a lathi blow on Munshi
\nSingh’s fingers.  The appellants  are also  alleged to\thave
\ncaused injuries\t to Jagga  Singh deceased.  Prem Singh,\t Bal
\nKishan and  Teja Singh.\t The victims  raised  an  alarm\t and
\nthereupon the appellants, alongwith their respective weapons
\nwent away from the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
     Chhota Singh  PW12 took  the  injured  persons  to\t the
\nPrimary Health Centre. Baragudha, Dr. Raj Kumar PW3 examined
\nMunshi Singh  PW11 at  11.45 P.M. on 7.7.1982. He noticed 11
\ninjuries on the person of Munshi Singh. On the same night at
\n12.10 a.m.  the said  Dr. Raj  Kumar PW3 examined Bal Kishan
\nand found  that he  had 3 injuries, all of which were simple
\nin nature.  The said  Doctor also examined Teja Singh on the
\nsame night who had 6 injuries on him.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  Dr. Raj\tKumar PW3  sent\t a  note  about\t the
\noccurrence to  police station  Baragudha on  that very night
\nwhereupon the ASI Bhup Singh PW15 went to the Primary Health
\nCentre. Baragudha and recorded the statement of Munshi Singh
\nPW11 on\t the basis  of which a case under Sections 324, 323,
\n285, 148,  341 read  with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25\/27
\nof the Arms Act was registered at the said police station.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  injuries on  Jagga Singh  and Prem\t Singh\twere
\nfound to  be more  serous they\twere referred  to the  civil
\nHospital at  Sirsa. Dr.\t J.L. Bhutani PW2 medically examined
\nJagga Singh  deceased at 3.35 A.M. on 8.7.1982 and noticed 7
\ninjuries which were as follows:.\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  Incised wound\t 10  cm\t x  bone
\n     deep on  the lateral  aspect of the
\n     left side of face in front of pinna
\n     extending towards\tthe angle of the
\n     mandible. The  margins  were  sharp
\n     and fresh bleeding was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm bone
\n     deep on  the top  of the  skull, 1″
\n     above the\thail line  and extending
\n     towards the  top on  the left side.
\n     The margins  were sharp  and  fresh
\n     bleeding  was  present.  X-ray  was
\n     advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  Incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm bone
\n     deep extending  from the  hair line
\n     in the  direction\tof  the\t sagital
\n     muture. The margines were sharp and
\n     fresh bleeding  was present.  X-ray
\n     was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  There\t  were\t two   punctured
\n     wounds 1  cm  in  diameter\t and  2″
\n     apart and\t3 cm deep on the lateral
\n     aspect of\tthe  left  arm.\t Clotted
\n     blood  was\t  present.  There   were
\n     corresponding  punctured  marks  on
\n     the shirt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  Punctured wound  on the dorsum
\n     of\t the  left  hand.  Swelling  was
\n     Present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.\t  Patient complained of pain and
\n     swelling  in   the\t  infra-scapular
\n     region on\tthe right  side\t and  on
\n     examination, surgical emphysema was
\n     present. Advised X-ray chest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.\t  There\t  was\t scratch    mark\n     (abrasion) 15  cm X  1\/2 cm  on the\n     left side on the back.\"\n<\/pre>\n
     Prem Singh\t was also examined by the said Doctor and he
\nhad 3  injuries on  his person. Thereafter the Doctor sent a
\nnote to the SHO Police Station at Sirsa about the arrival of
\nthe injured persons in the hospital. On police’s application
\nthe said  Doctor certified that Prem Singh was fit to make a
\nstatement. At  that time  the Doctor  gave an  opinion\tthat
\nJagga Singh  was not  fit to  make a  statement\t but  on  an
\nanother application  being  filed  Dr.J.L.  Bhutani  PW2  on
\n8.7.1982 at 12.50 P.M. certified that the Jagga Singh was in
\na fit  condition to  make statement.  Thereupon SI Charanjit
\nSingh PW15  recorded the  statement Ex.\t PSS of\t Jagga Singh
\n(deceased) at civil Hospital Sirsa. Jagga Singh succumbed to
\nhis injuries  on the morning of 10.7.1982 and thereafter the
\ncase was converted into one of murder.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After  the\t  usual\t investigation.\t Challan  was  filed
\nagainst all  the appellants.  Charges were  framed  against,
\nthem under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  trial the\tprosecution relied  upon the medical
\nevidence statement  Ex. PSS of Jagga Singh deceased as dying
\ndeclaration, the  evidence of  recoveries  of  incriminating
\nweapons alleged\t to have been made as a result of disclosure
\nstatements made\t by some  of the  appellants and  the ocular
\nversion given  by Munshi  Singh PW11  and Chhota Singh PW12.
\nBal Kishan Teja Singh and Prem Singh the other three persons
\nwho had\t received injuries  at the  time of  the occurrence,
\nwere given up by the prosecution on the allegation that they
\nhad been won over.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  in turn,  denied their participation in
\nthe crime  and it  was asserted\t that they  had been falsely
\ninvolved on  account of the party faction in the village. It
\nmay here  be stated  that the motive for the crime which was
\nsuggested was  that the\t Harijans of  the village  had\tcast
\ntheir votes in favour of the congress Party and the partymen
\nof Sukhdev  Singh appellant  wanted them to cast their votes
\nin favour of the lok Dal Party. The appellants also examined
\nD.S.P. Parma Nand DW1 in their defence according to whom the
\noccurrence took\t place when members of the complainant party
\nwere returning\tfrom the  police station accompanied by Head
\nconstable Sukhjit  Singh and  constables Balwan\t and Mahavir
\nSingh. It  was stated  that the\t aforesaid  police  officers
\nacted cowardly\tinasmuch as  they ran away from the scene of
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Sessions   Judge.  Sirsa   vide   judgment   dated
\n6\/8.12.1983 rejected  the defence  version and\taccepted the
\nprosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\nPritam Singh
\nSukhdev Singh.\t  U\/s 148. I.P.C.\/R.I. for one year each
\nAmarjit Singh
\nKuldip Singh
\nMahinder Singh\t  U\/s 302\/149 I.P.C. Imprisonment for
\n0Major Singh\t  life each.\n<\/p>\n
Gurtej Singh
\ns\/o Narain Singh  U\/s 326\/149 I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years each.
\nGurtej Singh
\ns\/o Pritam Singh  U\/s 324\/149 I.P.C.\/ R.I. for six
\nmonths each
\nZora Singh. Kaka Singh, Naiba Singh
\nand Munshi Singh
\napellants\t  U\/s 323\/149 I.P.C.\/ R.I for 3
\n\t\t  months each.\n<\/p>\n
     The substantive sentences of imprisonment were however,
\nordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeals\t being filed  the Punjab  and  Haryana\tHigh
\nCourt  examined\t  the  entire\tevidence   and\t ruled\t out
\nconsideration of  the dying declaration alleged to have been
\nmade by\t Jagga Singh  Ex. PSS. Even though Munshi Singh PW11
\nwho was\t an eye\t witness and  had  sustained  injuries,\t was
\ndeclared hostile,  the High  Court nevertheless\t referred to
\nhis testimony  and observed  that even though he had changed
\nthe story  to a\t minor extent  his evidence  was  worthy  of
\nreliance as  far as  what he saw on the spot. The High Court
\nalso relied  upon the  evidence of  the\t other\teye  witness
\nChhota Singh  PW12 and\tobserved that  he was present at the
\nplace of  incident and\twas in\ta position  to identify\t the
\nmembers of the attacking party.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court, however, accepted the arguments of the
\ndefence counsel\t to  the  effect  that\tthough\ttwo  of\t the
\nappellants were\t armed with a gun each and five of them were
\narmed with a pistol each and yet these weapons were not used
\nwhich showed  that the\tappellants did\tnot have  the common
\nobject of  an unlawful\tassembly to commit the murder of the
\nvictims.  The\tHigh  Court   accordingly.   set-aside\t the
\nconviction of  the  appellants\tbefore\tit  from  one  under
\nSection 302  read with\tSection\t 149  I.P.C.  to  one  under
\nSection 304 Part-II read with Section 149 I.P.C. and awarded
\nthe accused  R.I. for  four years  and a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-
\nand in\tdefault of  payment of\tfine they  were\t ordered  to
\nundergo further\t R.I  for  two\tyears.\tThe  conviction\t and
\nsentences were\tordered to  run concurrently  in the case of
\nall the appellants before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  R.C.Kohli,   learned\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellants in  Criminal Appeal No. 10\/1985 states that three
\nof the\tfive appellants\t namely, Mohinder Singh, Major Singh
\nand Amarjeet  Singh are since dead. Their appeal, therefore,
\nabates.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sushil\t Kumar Jain,  learned counsel  appearing for
\nthe appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1984 states that
\nthe appellant  Naiba Singh  is dead.  His appeal, therefore,
\nabates.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned   counsel  appearing\t on  behalf  of\t the
\ndifferent  appellants\thave  sought  to  contend  that\t the
\nconclusion of  the Courts  below that  the  appellants\twere
\nresponsible  for  causing  death  of  Jagga  Singh  was\t not
\nCorrect. It was submitted that Ex. PSS could not be regarded
\nas a  dying declaration\t and had been highly rejected by the
\nHigh Court. It was also submitted that Munshi Singh PW11 had
\nnot supported  the prosecution\tversion\t in  toto  and\tthat
\nChhota Singh  P12 was  in fact\tnot present  at the place of
\nincident. It  was also\tcontended that the F.I.R. was lodged
\nlate and there was no explanation for the same.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  carefully gone  through the  judgment  of\t the
\ncourts below  and have\talso seen the evidence on record. It
\nis clear, and is not disputed, that an incident had occurred
\nin the\tlate evening  of 7.7.1982 in village Baragudha which
\nhad led\t to injuries  on 5 persons one of whom, namely Jagga
\nSingh, having  succumbed to them. The only dispute which was
\nraised was  whether  the  appellants  were  responsible\t for
\ncausing the  said injuries. This question is essentially one
\nof fact\t and both  the trial court as well as the High Court
\nhave come  to a\t concurrent finding  of fact  that the\tsaid
\ninjuries were  caused by the appellants. The said conclusion
\nseems to flow from the evidence on record. Even if the dying
\ndeclaration of\tJagga Singh is ignored it is not possible to
\ncome to\t the conclusion\t that Chhota  Singh PW12  was got up
\nwitness who  was not  present at  the place of incident. The
\nevidence of  Chhota  Singh  PW12  has  withstood  the  cross
\nexamination and\t he has supported the prosecution’s case. He
\nhad identified\tall the\t appellants as\tbeing party  to\t the
\nattack on  the deceased\t and the  injured persons and he has
\nalso attributed\t the roles  played by each of them. The mere
\nfact that  he was  not injured\tis not\ta ground  which\t can
\npersuade us  to come  to the  conclusion  that\the  was\t not
\npresent at  the place of incident. His testimony having been
\nbelieved by  both the  trial court as well as the High Court
\nwe see no reason to reject the same.\n<\/p>\n
     As far  as Munshi Singh PW11 is concerned he was one of
\nthe  persons  who  was\tinjured\t in  the  incident.  In\t his
\nexamination-in-chief he\t had  clearly  stated  that  Kuldeep
\nSingh Major  Singh, Amarjit Singh Naiba Singh, Gurtej Singh.
\nZora Singh.  Mohinder Singh  etc, raised  a lalkara  stating
\nthat majbis  be finished. He had further stated that accused
\npersons were  armed with  4 or 5 pistols or gandasa and they
\nall attacked  him. Prem\t Singh, Teja  Singh Bal\t Kishan\t and
\nJagga Singh.  Though he did not mention the other appellants
\nas persons  who attacked, hevertheless Munshi Singh PW11 did
\nsay in his evidence that:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  correct that compromise has
\n     been  effected  with  Pritam  Singh
\n     Sukhdev Singh  Zora Singh\tand Kaka
\n     Singh and\tthat is\t why  I\t am  not
\n     naming them”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid  sentence of Munshi Singh clearly implies
\nthat these  named persons had taken part in the incident but
\nthey were  not being  named by\thim because  of a compromise
\narrived at  between Munshi  Singh on  the one hand and these
\nfour persons  on the  other. In the statement he did not say
\nthat some  of the  accused including  Sukhdev Singh  did not
\ntake part in the attack on the Harijans.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t our   opinion,\t therefore,  we\t see  no  reason  to
\ninterfere with\tthe conclusion\tof the\tHigh Court  that the
\nappellants were\t guilty of  the offences for which they were
\nconvicted and  sentenced by it. In view however of the lapse
\nof time\t and inasmuch  as the  appellants were convicted for
\noffences under\tSection 304 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and
\nsentenced to  4 years  R.I. and\t a fine\t of Rs. 5,000\/- each
\nwere released  on bail by the order dated 28.1.1985 and have
\nalready undergone  imprisonment for  over two  years we feel
\nthat the  ends of  justice would  be met  by reducing  their
\nsentence from 4 years R.I. to the sentence already undergone
\nby  them.   The\t fine\tof  Rs.\t 5,000\/-  each\tis  however,
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject to\t this modification  the appeals filed by the
\nappellants are\tdismissed. On  payment of  the fine within a
\nperiod of  two months from the date of communication of this
\norder the  appellants  shall  stand  discharged\t from  their
\nrespective bail\t bonds. In default they shall serve rigorous
\nimprisonment for 2 years each, as ordered by the High Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (2), 344 1996 SCALE (2)6 Author: K B.N. Bench: Kirpal B.N. (J) PETITIONER: KULDEEP SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/1996 BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) CITATION: JT […]<\/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-138017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - 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\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-11T05:48:03+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T05:48:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2413,\"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\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\",\"name\":\"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T05:48:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - 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\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-11T05:48:03+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T05:48:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996"},"wordCount":2413,"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\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996","name":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T05:48:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldeep-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-8-february-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 February, 1996"}]},{"@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\/138017","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=138017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}