{"id":149064,"date":"1952-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952"},"modified":"2018-10-22T11:11:08","modified_gmt":"2018-10-22T05:41:08","slug":"ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","title":{"rendered":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 76, \t\t 1953 SCR 418<\/div>\n
Author: M C Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAJMER SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/12\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR   76\t\t  1953 SCR  418\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1956 SC 217\t (1)\n R\t    1956 SC 425\t (5)\n R\t    1957 SC 216\t (12)\n R\t    1957 SC 589\t (16)\n RF\t    1961 SC 715\t (7)\n RF\t    1962 SC 439\t (8)\n E\t    1962 SC1239\t (14)\n RF\t    1963 SC 200\t (17)\n RF\t    1973 SC2622\t (7)\n R\t    1974 SC 606\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898, ss. 342, 417-Appeal  against\nacquittal-Interference-Guiding principle-Criminal  trial-Ex-\namination  of accused-Duty of  Court-Irregular\texamination-\nValidity of trial-Question of prejudice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAfter an order of acquittal has been made the presumption of\ninnocence  is  further reinforced by that  order,  and\tthat\nbeing  so,  the trial court's decision\tcannot\tbe  reversed\nmerely on the ground that the accused had failed to  explain\nthe  circumstances appearing against him but only  for\tvery\nsubstantial and compelling reasons.\nIn an appeal under s. 487, Criminal Procedure Code, the High\nCourt  has full power to review the evidence upon which\t the\norder of acquittal was founded.\nThe  duty  of a Sessions Judge under s. 342,  Criminal\tPro-\ncedure\tCode,  to examine the accused is not  discharged  by\nmerely reading over the questions put to the accused in\t the\nMagistrate's  Court  and  his answers,\tand  by\t asking\t him\nwhether he has to say anything about them.  It is also not a\nsufficient compliance with the section to generally ask\t the\naccused t hat, having heard the prosecution evidence what he\nhas to say about it.  He must be questioned separately about\neach  material\tcircumstance which is intended\tto  be\tused\nagainst him.  The, whole object of the section\n\t\t\t    419\nis  to afford the accused a fair and proper  opportunity  of\nexplaining  circumstances which appear against him  and\t the\nquestions  must be fair and must be couched in a form  which\nan  ignorant or illiterate person may be able to  appreciate\nand understand.\nIt  is, however, well settled that every error\tor  omission\ncomplying  with\t s.  342 does not  necessarily\tvitiate\t the\ntrial.\t Errors\t of this type fall within  the\tcategory  of\ncurable\t irregularities and the question whether  the  trial\nhas  been vitiated depends in each case upon the  degree  of\nerror  and upon whether prejudice has been or is  likely  to\nhave been caused to the accused.\nTara Singh v. The State ([1951] S.C.,R. 729) referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No . 67  of
\n1952.\tAppeal by special leave from the Judgment and  Order
\ndated  the  14th  September,  1951, of\tthe  High  Court  of
\nJudicature  for the State of Punjab at Simla  (Bhandari\t and
\nSoni JJ.) in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1950, arising out of
\nJudgment and Order dated the 13th May, 1960, of the Court of
\nthe Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, in Trial No. 28 of 1950\t and
\nCase No. 5 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
P. S. Safeer for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Gopal Singh for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1952.  December 10.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nMAHAJAN J.-Ajmer Singh, a young man of about 22 years of age
\nwas tried for the murder of Bagher Singh, his first  cousin,
\nand was acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore by his
\njudgment  dated\t 13th  May, 1950.  On appeal  by  the  State
\nGovernment, the order of acquittal was set aside by the High
\nCourt  and  the appellant was convicted under  section\t304,
\nIndian\tPenal  Code, and sentenced to  ten  years’  rigorous
\nimprisonment.\tThis is an appeal by special  leave  against
\nthat decision.\n<\/p>\n
One Nikka Singh had three sons, Bhagwan Singh, Lal Singh and
\nSunder\tSingh.\tBhagwan Singh died issueless some years\t ago
\nand disputes arose between Lal Singh and his brother  Sundar
\nSingh  in regard to the division of the property of  Bhagwan
\nSingh.\tSunder Singh was in possession of some of his landed
\n420<\/span>
\nproperties  and\t Lal  Singh obtained  a\t number\t of  decrees
\nagainst him but Sunder Singh declined to restore  possession
\nof the properties to his brother Lal Singh.  In view of this
\nlitigation the relations between Lal Singh and Sunder  Singh
\nwere considerably strained and it is said that for some time
\nthey were not even on speaking terms.  Lal Singh is  married
\nto  Mst.   Dhan Kaur and from her he had two sons.   One  of
\nthem  Bagher Singh was murdered and the other, Arjan  Singh,
\nis  P. W. 5. Accused Ajmer Singh is the son of Sunder  Singh
\nand Banta Singh is his real brother.  Ajmer Singh is married
\nto Jagir Kaur and Banta Singh to Kartar Kaur.  It is alleged
\nby the prosecution that on the evening of the 27th  January,
\n1948,  Jagir  Kaur complained to her fatherin-law  that\t her
\nhusband\t had  pawned her ear-rings in order to pay  off\t his
\ngambling  debts.   On the morning of the  28th\tBanta  Singh
\ninquired  from Ajmer Singh about this matter and he  replied
\nthat he had pawned the ear-rings to one Banta Singh  Mazhbi.
\nSoon after this Ajmer Singh, Banta Singh and one Teja  Singh
\nwent to Banta Singh Mazhbi and asked him to return the\tear-
\nrings  but  the latter replied that no\tornaments  had\tbeen
\npawned with him and added that he would give a sum of Rs. 30
\nto  them if Ajmer Singh took an oath that the ornaments\t had
\nin  fact been left with him.  It is said that Lal Singh\t was
\nalso  present when this conversation took place and took  up
\ncudgels\t on behalf of Banta Singh Mazhbi and this led to  an
\nexchange  of  hot words between Lal Singh and the  party  of
\nSunder Singh’s two sons and their companion Teja Singh.\t The
\nparties,  however, dispersed after exchanging hot words\t but
\nwithout coming to blows.\n<\/p>\n
  At  about sunset the same day Lal Singh and  his  brother
\nSunder\t Singh\tstarted\t abusing  each\tother\tfrom   their
\nrespective  houses which open out into\ta  common.courtyard.
\nThis  wordy warfare between the two brothers  attracted\t the
\nattention of Arjan Singh, Bagher Singh and one Ujagar  Singh
\nMazhbi\twho  on bearing the noise came to the house  of\t Lal
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   421<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal  Singh finding himself supported by three  others  threw
\nout a challenge to Sunder Singh and told him to come out  in
\nthe open.  It is said that Sunder Singh, his two, sons Banta
\nSingh  and Ajmer Singh, and Teja Singh, a cousin of  theirs,
\naccepted  the challenge and rushed out of the  house.\tTeja
\nSingh  and Banta Singh were armed with spears and they\tmade
\nan attack on Lal Singh and Dhan Kaur and inflicted on  their
\npersons a number of injuries.  Ajmer Singh, it is said,\t was
\narmed with a spear and he plunged his weapon into the  chest
\nof   Bagher   Singh   who   collapsed\tand   died    almost
\ninstantaneously.   Arjan  Singh\t soon  after  reported\tthis
\nincident  at the police station after travelling a  distance
\nof  about seven miles at 11-45 p. m. He gave to\t the  police
\nsubstantially  the same\t version as has now been deposed  to
\nby him in the witness box.  In this report it was stated  by
\nArjan Singh that it was Ajmer Singh who dealt Bagher Singh a
\nbarchha blow on his chest and that Bagher Singh fell down at
\nthis blow.  The police arrested Sunder Singh, Teja Singh and
\nBanta Singh but the appellant could not be found.
\nSunder\tSingh,\tTeja Singh and Banta Singh  were  prosecuted
\nunder  section 302\/34 but were convicted under section\t324,
\nIndian Penal Code, Banta Singh and Teja Singh were sentenced
\nto two years’ rigorous imprisonment each and Sunder Singh to
\nsix months’ rigorous imprisonment.  On appeal, Sunder  Singh
\nwas  acquitted and the sentences imposed on Banta Singh\t and
\nTeja  Singh  were reduced.  A lenient view’  of\t the  affair
\nseems  to  have been taken because the fight  between  these
\nnear  collaterals  took place suddenly and  ended  promptly.
\nBagher\tSingh died as a result of one blow and\tinjuries  on
\nthe person of Lal Singh and Dhan Kaur were not very  serious
\nAjmer  Singh was apprehended on 4th December, 1948,  and  as
\nabove  stated,\twas tried by the learned Sessions  Judge  of
\nFerozepore  and\t acquitted, but was convicted  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt on appeal by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
422<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal  Singh, P. W. 3, father of the deceased, Dhan Kuar,\t his
\nmother, and Arjan Singh,his real brother, have given  direct
\nevidence  about the occurrence.\t Ujagar Singh  Mazhbi  whose
\nname  is  mentioned  in the  first  information\t report\t was
\ntendered  for cross-examination but no question was  put  to
\nhim about the actual fight, and the manner in which it\ttook
\nplace or the part that was taken in it by the accused.\t One
\nBishandas,  whose  shop\t adjoins the  shop  of\tBanta  Singh
\nMazhbi,\t was  tendered for cross-examination  as  P.W.7.  He
\ndeposed that Banta Singh Mazhbi and Lal Singh were the\tonly
\npersons when the quarrel about ear-rings took place near his
\nshop.  In reexamination he stated that Banta Singh,  brother
\nof the accused, and Teja Singh had come on one side and\t Lal
\nSingh on the other when the quarrel about the ear-rings took
\nplace.\tNo direct question was put to the witness about\t the
\npresence  of,  Ajmer Singh on that  occasion.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge considered him a wholly independent  witness
\nand accepted his evidence about the incident that took place
\nat Banta Singh Mazhbi’s shop on the morning of the 28th.  He
\nheld  that  Ajmer  Singh  was not  present  at\tBanta  Singh
\nMazhbi’s shop and that Lal Singh and Arjan Singh had falsely
\nimplicated  him in the quarrel over the ear-rings, and\tthat
\nif the witnesses could falsely involve him in regard to\t one
\npart  of  the  occurrence,  the\t possibility  of  his  being
\nimplicated for the murder of Bagher Singh merely as a matter
\nof  vindictiveness could not be outruled.   After  examining
\nthe  evidence  of  the three eye-witnesses  in\tdetail,\t the
\nlearned Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that they\t had
\nsuppressed  the facts in order to absolve themselves of\t all
\nliability  for the happenings of the 28th, and\thad  uttered
\nuntruths  and that no confidence could be reposed  in  their
\nstatements  about the part that they had assigned  to  Ajmer
\nSingh.\t In the concluding part of the judgment he  observed
\nthat  ” the parties were at logger-heads on  several  issues
\nand  in the absence of independent evidence it is  difficult
\nto place reliance on the prosecution story
\n\t\t\t   423<\/span>
\nin  regard  to\tAjmer  Singh.” The  High  -Court  on  appeal
\nminutely  reviewed the evidence of these three eye-witnesses
\nand  considered\t that the variations in\t the  statements  of
\nwitnesses made at-, the two trials and which had weighed on-
\nthe mind of the Sessions Judge were of a minor and  trifling
\ncharacter  and were quite natural as the Statements at\tthis
\ntrial had been made 27 months after the occurrence and\tthat
\nthe narration of events by Arjan Singh was substantially the
\nsame  as had been given by him at the earlier trial  and  in
\nthe first information report.  As regards Lal Singh, who had
\nresiled\t from his earlier statement and bad denied  that  he
\nwas armed with a phaura or that Arjan Singh wag armed with a
\nlathi, it was said that this omission on his part was due to
\nmere  lapse  of memory and forgetfulness rather\t than  to  a
\ndeliberate design to improve- upon the prosecution story.
\nIt  was argued by Mr. Pritam Singh Safeer that in this\tcase
\nthere were no compelling reasons for setting aside the order
\nof  acquittal and that due proper weight had not been  given
\nby  the\t High  Court to the opinion of the  trial  judge  as
\nregards\t the credibility of witnesses seen and\texamined  by
\nhim.  The learned counsel submitted that the High Court\t was
\nin error in the view that “when a strong prima facie case is
\nmade out against an accused person it is his duty to explain
\nthe circumstances appearing in evidence against him and`  he
\ncannot take shelter behind’ the presumption of innocence and
\ncannot\tstate  that the law entitles him to  keep  his\tlips
\nsealed.” We think this criticism is well founded.  After  an
\norder  of acquittal has been made the presumption  of  inno-
\ncence  is further reinforced by that order, and\t that  being
\nso,  the trial court’s decision can be reversed not  on\t the
\nground\t that  the  accused  had  failed  to   explain\t the
\ncircumstances  appearing  against  him but  only  for  ,very
\nsubstantial and compelling reasons.\n<\/p>\n
 As  the courts below expressed divergent opinions  on\tthe
\ncredibility of the prosecution witnesses, we
\n35<\/span>
\n424<\/span>
\nhad to read the evidence adduced in the case with great care
\nand  after doing so, we are on the whole inclined  to  agree
\nwith the view expressed by the High Court.  It is  difficult
\nto  believe that without there being any truth in  the\tfact
\nthat the appellant struck Bagher Singh with a barchha, Arjan
\nSingh  selected the appellant and ascribed to him that\tpart
\nsoon   after   the  occurrence.\t  There\t are   no   material
\ndiscrepancies  in  the\tstatements made by  Arjan  Singh  on
\ndifferent occasions and in our view the reasons given by the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge for rejecting his testimony are\t not
\nconvincing.  We agree with the High Court that there are  no
\nsufficient reasons for distrusting his evidence.  The number
\nof  persons who took part in the quarrel was not  more\tthan
\nseven  or  eight and the blows inflicted were  few,  and  in
\nthese  circumstances Arjan Singh could have made no  mistake
\nas  to\tthe identity of the person who struck  Bagher  Singh
\nfatally.  This part of -his statement is corroborated by the
\nevidence  of Lal Singh and Dhan Kaur.  No  cross-examination
\nwas  directed,\tagainst this part of their  statements.\t  It
\nseems that the learned Sessions Judge took too exaggerated a
\nview of the minor discrepancies in these statements and read
\nthem  with  a rather hypercritical mind.   Bishandas,  whose
\nstatement considerably impressed him, was only tendered\t for
\ncross-examination and never made a full statement about\t the
\nhappenings  of the 28th morning.  The statement made by\t him
\nis  somewhat cryptic and from this it cannot  be  definitely
\nconcluded that Ajmer Singh was not present on the morning of
\nthe  28th  at the shop of Banta Singh Mazhbi.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge was not right in rejecting the whole of\t the
\nprosecution  evidence as unreliable merely on the  basis  of
\nthis  cryptic statement.  Ujagar Singh, the other  so-called
\nindependent witness, was tendered for cross-examination\t but
\nthe  defence  did not ask him a single\tquestion  about\t the
\nhappenings  of\tthe 28th.  The argument therefore  that\t the
\nprosecution  withheld from court independent  witnesses\t who
\nhad witnessed the occurrence is without any substance.\t The
\nlearned Sessions Judge
\n\t\t\t   425<\/span>
\nwas apparently labouring under some misapprehension when  he
\nsaid  that  the\t prosecution had  withheld  from  the  court
\nindependent witnesses of the occurrence.  Apart from  Ujagar
\nSingh Mazhbi, no one else appears to have been present\twhen
\nthe  attack  was made on Bagher Singh, Lal  Singh  and\tMst.
\nDhan Kaur by the party of the accused.\tAll that appears  in
\nevidence  is  that  after the fight was\t over  a  number  of
\npersons arrived on the scene but as they did not witness the
\nattack\ton Bagher Singh they could give no evidence on\tthis
\npoint and their non-production as witnesses cannot have\t any
\nconsequence on the case.  It is significant that the defence
\nalso led no evidence to prove that the fight took place in a
\nmanner\tdifferent from the one described by the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses,  or\tthat  Ajmer Singh was  not  present  on\t the
\noccasion.   In -an appeal under section 417 of the  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure the High Court had full power to  review
\nthe  evidence upon which the order of acquittal was  founded
\nand we are satisfied that it did not in any way exercise  it
\nwrongly The injuries on the person of Kartar Kaur and  under
\nSingh were not proved to have been inflicted at the time  of
\nthe occurrence and were of no consequence.  The\t prosecution
\nwas under no obligation to explain how they came about.
\nIt was next argued that the trial held by the Sessions Judge
\nwas vitiated as the examination of the appellant was not  in
\naccordance  with  the provisions of  section  342,  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code.  There is considerable force in  the  point
\nthat the examination of the appellant by the Sessions  Judge
\nwas detective.\tAll that the Sessions Judge did was, that he
\nread  out  the examination of the accused in  the  committal
\ncourt  to him and then recorded the following questions\t and
\nanswers:-\n<\/p>\n
”  Q:  Did  you make before the\t Committing  Magistrate\t the
\nstatement that has-just now been read out to you ?
\nA: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
426<\/span><\/p>\n
Q:Now  that  you  have heard  the  entire  evidence  against
\nyourself  and the charge has been explained to you,  do\t you
\nwish to say anything else ?\n<\/p>\n
A:   I am innocent.\n<\/p>\n
Q:   Do you wish to produce any evidence indefence ?
\nA:   No.”\n<\/p>\n
In the committal court the ‘questions put to the accused and
\nhis answers were these :-\n<\/p>\n
”  Q:  Did you pawn the, ear-ring of your  wife\t with  Banta
\nMazhbi\tand squander the proceeds on or about 28th  January,
\n1948 ?\n<\/p>\n
A:   No.
\nQ : Did Lal Singh interfere when you were demanding the ear-
\nrings  from  said  Banta Singh on  28th\t January,  1948,  at
\nNathuwala  and\tremark that the sweeper,  i.e.,\t Banta,\t was
\nspeaking truth when he denied the transaction ?
\nA:   No.
\nQ:   Did you on 28th January , 1948, at Nathuwala along with
\nyour  father Sunder Singh, Banta Singh, and Teja Singh,\t you
\nBanta  Singh and Teja Singh being armed with spears,  attack
\nLal  Singh,  his ‘son Bagher Singh and Dhan  Kaur  at  their
\nhouse and in furtherance of the common intention of you all,
\nBanta  and  Teja caused simple injuries to  Lal\t Singh\twith
\nspears and you caused fatal injuries with a spear to  Bagher
\nSingh deceased?\n<\/p>\n
A    No.\nQ    Why this case against you ?\nA    Due to enmity.\nQ    Anything else to say?\nA     No.\"\n<\/pre>\n
The  Sessions  Judge  did  not even take  care\tto  ask\t the
\naccused\t the routine question whether the statement made  by
\nhim in the committal court was correct.\t As if bard  pressed
\nfor  time,  be\tsimply asked him whether he  had  made\tthat
\nstatement  read out to him in the committal court,  and\t was
\nsatisfied with an
\n\t\t\t   427<\/span>
\nanswer, in the affirmative.  The, second question asked,  is
\nof   a\tgeneral\t character  and.’  does\t not   satisfy\t the
\nrequirements  of section 342, Criminal Procedure  Code.\t  We
\nare of the opinion that when the Sessions Judge is  required
\nby that section to make the examination of the .accused, his
\nduty is not discharged by merely reading over the  questions
\nand answers to the accused put in the committing magistrates
\ncourt and by asking him whether he has to say anything about
\nthem.  It is not, sufficient compliance with the section  to
\ngenerally ask the accused that having heard the\t prosecution
\nevidence, what he has to say about it.\tThe accused must be,
\nquestioned separately about each material circumstance which
\nis  intended to be used against him.  It was pointed out  by
\nthis  Court  in Tara Singh v. The State(1)  that  the  whole
\nobject\tof the section, is to afford the accused a fair\t and
\nproper opportunity of explaining circumstances which  appear
\nagainst him and that the questions must be fair and must  be
\ncouched\t in  a form which an ignorant or  illiterate  person
\nwill be able to appreciate and understand.
\nIn this particular case at one stage of the argument we were
\ninclined  to order a retrial of the accused in view  of\t the
\ndefective examination of the accused  by the Sessions  Judge
\nbut  on further thought we have reached the conclusion\tthat
\nthe  ‘High  Court was right in the view that  the  defective
\nprocedure followed by the Sessions Judge in this respect has
\nnot  occasioned any prejudice to the accused.  The facts  of
\nthe  case  are free from any complication and the  point  in
\nissue  was a simple one and it cannot be said that the\tper-
\nfunctory  examination of the appellant did any damage.\t The
\nonly point appearing in the evidence against the accused was
\nthat he gave a barchha blow to Bagher Singh.  The  witnesses
\nhad stated that fact in his face and had been cross-examined
\non the point by his counsel.  He was fully apprised of\tthe-
\npart  ascribed\tto him in the quarrel.\tHis answer  to\tthis
\nspecific  question  in the committal court was that  he\t was
\ninnocent and that he was being implicated owing to
\n(1)  [1951] S.C.R. 729.\n<\/p>\n
428<\/span><\/p>\n
enmity.\t  He  stuck to that reply in the  Court\t of  Session
\nafter  fully  understanding what he was asked.\tIt  is\twell
\nsettled that every error or omission not in compliance\twith
\nthe provisions of section 342 does not necessarily vitiate a
\ntrial.\t Errors\t of this type fall within  the\tcategory  of
\ncurable\t irregularities,  and,\tas  held  in  Tara   Singh’s
\ncase(1),  the  question, whether the trial is  vitiated,  in
\neach  case  depends upon the degree of the  error  and\tupon
\nwhether prejudice has been or is likely to have been  caused
\nto the accused.\t We are of the opinion that the disregard of
\nthe  provisions of section 342 in this case is not so  gross
\nas would justify our quashing the conviction and ordering  a
\nretrial.\n<\/p>\n
The result is that we uphold the judgment of the High  Court
\nand dismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
   Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: B. S. Gheba.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 76, 1953 SCR 418 Author: M C Mahajan Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand PETITIONER: AJMER SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/1952 BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN […]<\/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-149064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - 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\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-22T05:41:08+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T05:41:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\"},\"wordCount\":3144,\"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\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\",\"name\":\"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T05:41:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - 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\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-22T05:41:08+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952","datePublished":"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T05:41:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952"},"wordCount":3144,"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\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952","name":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T05:41:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-december-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajmer Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 10 December, 1952"}]},{"@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\/149064","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=149064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}