{"id":142322,"date":"1982-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982"},"modified":"2015-01-14T02:52:49","modified_gmt":"2015-01-13T21:22:49","slug":"prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","title":{"rendered":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR   61, \t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 822<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPREM THAKUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/11\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR   61\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 822\n 1982 SCC  (3) 462\t  1982 SCALE  (2)1057\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1989 SC1890\t (31)\n R\t    1990 SC  79\t (10)\n R\t    1991 SC 917\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Evidence-Circumstantial\t evidcnce-How\t  evaluated-\nCircumstances relied  upon as  establishing  involvement  of\naccused must clinch the issue of guilt.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution case against the appellant was that he,\nalong with  five workers migrated from Nepal and that at the\ntime of\t occurrence all\t of them  were working\tin Punjab as\nagricultural labourers.\t Out of\t a large sum of money earned\nby them\t as wages they spent a part and the balance was left\nwith one  of the  five deceased. On the evening prior to the\nday of\toccurrence the\tappellant was  found by the employer\ncooking food for himself and his companions but when he went\nto his\tfield the following morning he noticed the five dead\nbodies of  the co-workers were smouldering in the pit of his\ntube  well.  Post-mortem  examination  of  the\tdead  bodies\nrevealed several  ante-mortem injuries,\t most of  which were\nlacerated wounds.  Prom that  day onwards  the apellant\t was\nfound missing.\n     The trial Court, accepting the circumstantial evidence,\nconvicted and  A sentenced  the appellant to death. The High\nCourt affirmed\tthe conviction\ton three  grounds: (i) since\nthe money  was not  found on the person of the deceased with\nwhom it\t was kept,  the motive was theft; (ii) the appellant\nwas last  seen in  the company of all the deceased and (iii)\nthe appellant absconded thereafter to conceal his presence.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: It  is impossible  to believe  that the crime was\ncommitted in  the manner  alleged by the prosecution or that\nthe appellant  could  possibly\thave  committed\t it  in\t the\ncircumstances alleged. [826 C-D]\n     In a  case which  depends\twholly\tupon  circumstantial\nevidence, the  circumstances must  be of such a nature as to\nbe capable  of supporting  the exclusive hypothesis that the\naccused is  guilty of the crime of which he is charged. That\nis to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the\ninvolvement of\tthe accused  in the  crime must\t clinch\t the\nissue of  Built. Very  often, circumstances  which establish\nthe commission\tof an offence in the abstract are identified\nas circumstances  which prove  that the\t prisoner before the\nCourt is  guilty of  a crime  imputed to  him. An  a  priori\nsuspicion that the accused has committed\n823\nthe crime  transforms itself into a facile belief that it is\nhe who\thas committed the crime. Human mind plays that trick\non proof  of the  commission of\t a crime  by  resisting\t the\nfrustrating feeling  that no  one can  be identified  as the\nauthor of that crime. [826 G-H]\n     In the  instant case  the circumstances  attendant upon\nthe incident  militate entirely\t against the conclusion that\nthe five murders were committed R by the appellant. Tho fact\nthat the  assailant robbed  the victims\t of the mopey cannot\nnecessarily lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant\nwho robbed  them of  their money. That the appellant and his\nco-workers were\t paid a\t fairly large sum of money was known\nto others  apart from  the appellant  and his Companions. No\npart of\t the money was traced to the appellant and therefore\nbe could not be connected with the crime. [825 C-E]\n     Assuming that  the deceased  were administered  liquor,\nmedical evidence did not know that tho liquor consumed would\nhave induced  such stupor  verging upon\t hypnosis It is also\nincredible that\t the five  persons done to death by a single\nindividual were\t under such a heavy spell of sleep that none\nof them woke up when the other or others were attacked. [826\nD-F]\n     The fact  that the\t appellant  was\t last  seen  in\t the\ncompany of  the deceased  and that he was not present at the\nplace from  which the  dead bodies  were recovered  the next\nmorning are equivocal circumstances on which it is hazardous\nto base the conviction. [827 D]\n     The circumstance  that the appellant absconded from the\nplace of  occurrence does not lead to the conclusion that he\nhad made himself scarce in order to conceal his presence. If\nhe was\tfound by the team of investigating officers in Nepal\ngoing about  openly, it\t is difficult  to hold\tthat he\t had\nabsconded to Nepal. [825 G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n187 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated 7.10.81  of the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in<br \/>\nCriminal No.466-DB\/81 .\n<\/p>\n<p>     N.R. Agarwala Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     Ashwani Kumar and D.D. Sharma for the Respondent.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHANDRACHUD,  C.J.\t The  appellant,  Prem\tThakur,\t was<br \/>\nconvicted by  the learned  Sessions Judge,  Rupnagar,  under<br \/>\nsections<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">824<\/span><br \/>\n302 and\t 201 of\t the Indian  Penal Code and was sentenced to<br \/>\ndeath for  the former  offence. The  conviction and sentence<br \/>\nhaving been  upheld by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,<br \/>\nthe appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The charge\t against the  appellant is that he committed<br \/>\nthe murder of five co-labourers on the night between the 8th<br \/>\nand 9th\t November, 1980\t in the\t village of  Rolu Majra. The<br \/>\ncase of\t the prosecution is that the appellant came to India<br \/>\nfrom Nepal  in search  of  work\t along\twith  his  companion<br \/>\nworkers and  a few  others. They  worked with  one  Mohinder<br \/>\nSingh for  about 14  days for  which they were paid a sum of<br \/>\nRs. 2,900.  The appellant  and his co-workers spent a sum of<br \/>\nRs. 800\t therefrom and the balance of Rs. 2100 was kept with<br \/>\nRama  Nand  who\t was  one  of  the  five  coworkers  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant. The\tappellant and his companions thereafter went<br \/>\nto the\tvillage of Rolu Majra where they worked in the field<br \/>\nof Ujjagar  Singh. On  the  evening  of\t the  day  following<br \/>\nDiwali, Ujjagar\t Singh saw  the accused\t cooking  meals\t for<br \/>\nhimself and  his five companions. When Ujjagar Singh went to<br \/>\nthe field  next morning\t at 8  00 a.m, he noticed that smoke<br \/>\nwas coming  out of  the pit  of his tubewell. When he peeped<br \/>\ninto the  well he  saw five dead bodies smouldering. Ujjagar<br \/>\nSingh lodged  information of the offence with A.S.I. Jarnail<br \/>\nSingh. The  post-mortem examination  on the five dead bodies<br \/>\nrevealed several ante-mortem injuries, most of which were in<br \/>\nthe nature of lacerated wounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since Ujagar  Singh  had  seen  the  appellant  in\t the<br \/>\ncompany of  five deceased  persons and the appellant was not<br \/>\nto be  seen anywhere,  the suspicion of the police naturally<br \/>\nfell upon  him. The  case of  the  prosecution\tis  that  on<br \/>\nDecember 1,  1980, the\tappellant was  arrested while he was<br \/>\nworking near the tubewell of Sohan Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There is  no direct  evidence to  connect the appellant<br \/>\nwith the  five murders.\t In support  of the charges levelled<br \/>\nagainst him,  the  prosecution\trelied\tupon  circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence which\tconsisted of:  (i) motive  for the  offence;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) the  fact that  the appellant  was\t seen  last  in\t the<br \/>\ncompany\t of  the  deceased  on\tthe  evening  preceding\t the<br \/>\ndiscovery of  the dead\tbodies;\t (iii)\tthe  fact  that\t the<br \/>\naccused had absconded; (iv) the extra-judicial confession of<br \/>\nthe appellant;\t(v) the\t recovery of a &#8216;Tangli&#8217; in pursuance<br \/>\nof the statement made by the appellant; (vi) the recovery of<br \/>\nthe dead  bodies from  the pit\tnear the tubewell of Ujjagar<br \/>\nSingh; and (vii)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">825<\/span><br \/>\nfalse statement\t made by the appellant to Ram Ishar, the son<br \/>\nof one\tof the\tdeceased, Rama\tNand, that  the latter would<br \/>\nreturn to the village after Puran Mashi.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  Sessions  Judge  accepted  some  of  these<br \/>\ncircumstances as  proved and convicted the appellant for the<br \/>\nfive murders  on the  basis of those circumstances. The High<br \/>\nCourt has  relied  upon\t three\tcircumstances,\tnamely,\t (i)<br \/>\nmotive, (ii)  the fact\tthat the  appellant was seen last in<br \/>\nthe company  of the  deceased and  (iii) the  conduct of the<br \/>\nappellant after the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As regards\t motive, the  High  Court  observes  in\t its<br \/>\njudgment that  since no\t money was found on the dead bodies,<br \/>\ntheft was  obviously the  motive for  the crime. That may be<br \/>\nso, but\t we are unable to understand how the fact that theft<br \/>\nwas the\t motive for the crime can connect the appellant with<br \/>\nthe crime.  It is  quite likely that whosoever committed the<br \/>\nfive murders  robbed the victims of the money which they had<br \/>\non their  person, but  that cannot  necessarily lead  to the<br \/>\nconclusion that\t it is the appellant who robbed the deceased<br \/>\nof their money. The fact that a fairly large sum was paid to<br \/>\nthe appellant and his co-workers by way of their wages would<br \/>\nbe  known  to  others  apart  from  the\t appellant  and\t his<br \/>\ncompanions. No part of the money was traced to the appellant<br \/>\nand therefore,\twe are unable to accept that the accused can<br \/>\nbe connected  with the\tcrime merely  because the motive for<br \/>\nthe crime was theft.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The circumstances\tthat the  appellant was last seen in<br \/>\nthe company of the deceased can be accepted as proved but no<br \/>\ninference  can\t arise\ttherefrom  that\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\ncommitted their\t murder. The  appellant was working with the<br \/>\ndeceased and  others and there was nothing unnatural. in the<br \/>\nappellant being\t in the\t company of  his companions  on\t the<br \/>\nevening before the murders were committed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In so  far as  the\t allegation  that  the\taccused\t had<br \/>\nabsconded is  concerned, it  is not  easy to  rely upon that<br \/>\ncircumstance as\t leading to  the conclusion that he had made<br \/>\nhimself scarce\tin order  to conceal his presence. The story<br \/>\nof the\tprosecution that  he was 3 arrested in Punjab itself<br \/>\nhas been  disbelieved by  the High Court according to which,<br \/>\nthe  appellant\twas  brought  from  Nepal  by  the  team  of<br \/>\nInvestigating officers.\t The appellant\tbelongs to Nepal and<br \/>\nif he was found in Nepal going about openly, it is difficult<br \/>\nto accept the charge that he had absconded to Nepal.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">826<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     The circumstance that the appellant told Ram Ishar that<br \/>\nthe latter&#8217;s  father Rama  Nand would  return to the village<br \/>\nafter Puran  Mashi cannot  clinch the issue unless one stars<br \/>\nwith the  presumption that  the appellant  had committed the<br \/>\ncrime. But then one cannot put the cart before the horse. At<br \/>\nthe highest,  what the appellant said to Ram Ishar may raise<br \/>\na cloud of suspicion but nothing more.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have considered carefully the entire evidence in the<br \/>\ncase and  the various facts attendant upon the five murders.<br \/>\nIt seems  to us\t quite impossible  to believe that the crime<br \/>\nwas committed  in the  manner alleged  by the prosecution or<br \/>\nthat the  appellant could  possibly have committed it in the<br \/>\ncircumstances alleged.\tIt is  said that  the five  deceased<br \/>\npersons were administered liquor, that after drinking liquor<br \/>\nthey lapsed into a deep spell of sleep, that while they were<br \/>\nasleep they  were killed,  that they were carried one by one<br \/>\nto A  the bottom  of a\t35 ft. tubewell and that thereafter,<br \/>\nthey were set on fire. The post-mortem notes and the medical<br \/>\nevidence show that the liquor consumed by the deceased could<br \/>\nnot have  produced unconsciousness  How it could induce such<br \/>\nstupor verging upon hypnosis is more than one can reasonably<br \/>\nimagine. The  prosecution case\trequires for its success the<br \/>\nincredible assumption that the five persons done to death by<br \/>\na single  individual were  under such a heavy spell of sleep<br \/>\nthat none  of them  woke up  when the  others were attacked.<br \/>\nWhen the  first of  the five  victims was attacked, he would<br \/>\nhave shrieked  or shouted  and thereby\tthe others  would be<br \/>\naroused from  their  sleep.  They  were\t young,\t able-bodied<br \/>\nlabourers. It  puts quite  some strain\ton our\tcredulity to<br \/>\naccept that a single person could have finished off his five<br \/>\ncompanions in  the  fiction-like  manner    alleged  by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court could not but be aware of the principle<br \/>\nthat in\t a case\t which depends\twholly\tupon  circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence, the  circumstances must  be of such a nature as to<br \/>\nbe capable  of supporting  the exclusive hypothesis that the<br \/>\naccused is  guilty of the crime of which he is charged. That<br \/>\nis to say, the circumstances relied upon as establishing the<br \/>\nenvolvement of\tthe accused  in the  crime must\t clinch\t the<br \/>\nissue of  guilt. Very  often, circumstances  which establish<br \/>\nthe commission\tof an offence in the abstract are identified<br \/>\nas circumstances  which prove  that the\t prisoner before the<br \/>\ncourt is  guilty of  the crime\timputed to  him. An a priori<br \/>\nsuspicion  that\t  the  accused\t has  committed\t  the  crime<br \/>\ntransforms itself into a facile belief<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">827<\/span><br \/>\nthat it\t is he who has committed the crime. Human mind plays<br \/>\nthat A\ttrick on  proof of  the commission  of\ta  crime  by<br \/>\nresisting  the\tfrustrating  feeling  that  no\tone  can  be<br \/>\nidentified as  the author  of that crime. In the case before<br \/>\nus, there  is no  doubt that  five  persons  were  murdered.<br \/>\nUnquestionably, every  effort had to be made to find out who<br \/>\ncommitted those murders. But the duty is not done by holding<br \/>\nsomeone or the other guilty somehow or other. In the instant<br \/>\ncase, the circumstances attendant upon the incident militate<br \/>\nentirely against  the conclusion  that the five murders were<br \/>\ncommitted by  the appellant.  The very\tpattern of the crime<br \/>\nbelies that  conclusion. We  are unable\t to share  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s view  that the\tevidence showing &#8220;that the appellant<br \/>\nwas present  with the  deceased persons\t on the\t evening  of<br \/>\nNovember 8,  1980 and  he was then missing from there on the<br \/>\nnext  morning\tproves\tthe  offences  alleged\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nappellant beyond  any shadow  of doubt&#8221;.  In support  of its<br \/>\nconclusion that the appellant had committed the murders, the<br \/>\nHigh Court  has even  pressed into service the circumstances<br \/>\nthat the  appellant was not present &#8216;at the place from-which<br \/>\nthe dead  bodies were recovered&#8221; the next morning. These are<br \/>\nequivocal circumstances on which it is hazardous to base the<br \/>\nconviction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result we\tallow  the  appeal,  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nconviction of  the appellant  on  all  the  counts  and\t the<br \/>\nsentences imposed  upon him  including the sentence of death<br \/>\nand acquit  him of  all the  charges. He  shall be  released<br \/>\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">828<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 61, 1983 SCR (1) 822 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj) PETITIONER: PREM THAKUR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/11\/1982 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) CITATION: 1983 [&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-142322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - 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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-13T21:22:49+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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-13T21:22:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\"},\"wordCount\":1641,\"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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\",\"name\":\"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-13T21:22:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - 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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-13T21:22:49+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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982","datePublished":"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-13T21:22:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982"},"wordCount":1641,"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\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982","name":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-13T21:22:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-thakur-vs-state-of-punjab-on-17-november-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prem Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 1982"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/142322","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=142322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}