{"id":150375,"date":"2007-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007"},"modified":"2016-04-08T06:56:03","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T01:26:03","slug":"ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1044 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nUjjagar Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
     HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tUjjagar Singh, the appellant herein, a resident of village
\nBangawali, Tehsil Malerkotla, was tried and convicted by the
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the murder of his niece
\nMukhtiar Kaur and was awarded the death penalty.  In
\naddition, he was convicted for an offence punishable under
\nsection 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.5, 000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment to undergo further R.I. for one year and
\nunder section 309 of the IPC to a sentence of simple
\nimprisonment for one year.  The aforesaid convictions and
\nsentences have been maintained by the High Court and the
\nmatter is before us in these proceedings by way of special leave.
\nThe facts of the case are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tAt about 2.00 p.m. on 10th November 2002 a boy whose
\nidentity is not forthcoming, informed Satnam Singh PW2 that
\nan incident of firing had taken place in the house of Ujjagar
\nSingh situated in the fields on the outskirts of the village.
\nSatnam Singh conveyed this information to Sarpanch Jora
\nSingh PW1 who was attending a marriage at that time.  Jora
\nSingh accompanied by Gurdeep Singh PW3 thereupon rushed
\nto Ujjagar Singhs house and found Mukhtiar Kaur lying dead
\nwith a gun shot injury and the appellant also with a gun shot
\ninjury lying unconscious on the ground in the adjoining room.
\nJora Singh and Gurdeep Singh immediately removed Ujjagar
\nSingh to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri in the jeep belonging to
\nKulwant Singh PW4.  Jora Singh also met Inspector Harjinder
\nPal Singh PW14 at 4.40 p.m. near the hospital, who recorded
\nhis statement at that place and with his endorsement Ex.P.A.
\nsent it to Police Station, Dhuri where the formal FIR was
\nregistered at about 4.45 p.m. with the special report being
\ndelivered to the Illaka Magistrate at Dhuri itself at 6.20 p.m. the
\nsame evening.  The facts as narrated were that Arjan Singh of
\nvillage Bangawali had three sons Puran Singh, Ujjagar Singh
\n(appellant) and Ajmer Singh.  Puran Singh had died about 20
\nyears earlier leaving behind his wife, two sons and a daughter
\nMukhtiar Kaur.  The two sons and the wife also died long before
\nthe incident and Mukhtiar Kaur the sole surviving member of
\nthis branch of the family had been married to Balwinder Singh
\nPW9 about 9 or 10 years earlier.  Puran Singh had however
\ntransferred 30 or 35 bighas  of agricultural land falling to his
\nshare after the death of his father in the name of the appellants
\nsons  by a collusive decree in the year 1994 and the suggestion
\nwas that this transaction had been objected to by Mukhtiar
\nKaur who was demanding that the land be returned to her.  It
\nappears that Mukhtiar Kaurs relations with her in-laws had got
\nstrained and she had left her matrimonial home and come to
\nlive with Ujjagar Singh, her uncle, 7 or 8 months earlier and the
\nsuggestion was that Mukhtiar Kaur had been killed by the
\nappellant with his licensed gun and he had thereafter attempted
\nto commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tHaving recorded the aforesaid facts in the FIR, PW14
\nInspector Harjinder Pal Singh reached the place of incident and
\nlifted one spent 12 bore cartridge case (Shaktiman make) from
\nnear Mukhtiar Kaurs dead body and one DBBL gun from the
\nplace where Ujjagar Singh appeared to have been shot and
\nanother spent cartridge case was recovered from the right barrel
\nof the gun.  After completion of the investigation at the spot,
\nMukhtiar Kaurs dead body was sent for its post-mortem
\nexamination.  The post-mortem examination was also
\nconducted by PW5 Dr. Ishwar Singh, Medical Officer, Civil
\nHospital along with Dr. Harwinder Kaur PW17 and it was found
\nthat Mukhtiar Kaur had two gunshot injuries on her dead body,
\na wound of entry on the back of right side of chest 2 cm x 1 cm
\nwith margining (sic) and blackening and a corresponding exit
\nwound of 5 cm x 3.5 cm to the front of the right side of the
\nchest.   Dr. Harwinder Kaur aforesaid also took swabs from the
\nvagina of the deceased and as per the chemical examiners
\nreport dated 2.1.2003 semen was found on the swab taken from
\nthe vagina and from the underwear that Mukhtiar Kaur had
\nbeen wearing at the time of her death. The weapon and the
\nrecovered cartridge cases  had also been sent to the Forensic
\nScience Laboratory which in its report dated 4.8.2004 opined
\nthat the crime cartridge case CI could have been fired by the
\nright barrel of the weapon whereas the crime cartridge case C2
\nhad been fired from the right barrel.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tOn the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet
\nunder sections 302, 376 and 309 of the IPC was filed against
\nthe accused and as he pleaded not guilty he was brought to
\ntrial.  During the trial Jora Singh PW1, Satnam Singh PW2,
\nGurdeep  Singh PW3 and Kulwant Singh PW4  resiled from their
\nstatements given to the police and were declared hostile.
\nBalwinder Singh PW9, however, supported the prosecution case
\ndeposing that the land  had in fact been got transferred from
\nGurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur   to Ujjagar Singh by
\nfraud and Mukhtiar Kaur was therefore entitled to its return.
\nHe also deposed that Mukhtiar Kaur had told him some time
\nearlier that the accused had been beating her and had also
\ncommitted sexual intercourse with her and that at about 11
\np.m. on 10.11.2002 Karam Singh PW10 had informed him as to
\nwhat had transpired on which he along with his father Hamir
\nSingh PW12 and several others had rushed to Bangawali.
\nPW10 Karam Singh aforesaid confirmed the story given by
\nBalwinder Singh.  The prosecution also relied on the statements
\nof Dr. Vijay Kumar PW6 of the Civil Hospial, Dhuri  who
\ntestified that the appellant had been brought to the hospital at
\nabout 2.45 p.m. on 10.11.2002 with a serious gun shot injury,
\nDr. Ripan Miglani PW15 of the Dayanand Medical College &
\nHospital, Ludhiana who deposed that he had been admitted to
\nthe department of Neuro surgery with a serious gun shot injury
\nand Dr. Sanjay Uppal PW16, a plastic surgeon who disclosed
\nthat the appellant had been under his treatment for almost 5
\nweeks and the burnt area around the firearm injury had been
\nremoved by him.  The prosecution also placed reliance on the
\nstatement of ASI Jasbir Singh PW11 who had accompanied
\nInspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 to the place of incident and
\nsupported the recoveries made from the spot.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe prosecution case was then put to the accused and
\nhis statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.   In
\nreply to question 33 he stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tI am innocent.  I have been implicated falsely
\nin this case.  I was treating Mukhtiar Kaur as my
\ndaughter and loved her as my daughter.  False
\nallegations have been levelled against me.  I never
\nharassed Mukhtiar Kaur nor ever got her land
\nmutated from her mother by fraud.  I have not
\nkilled Mukhtiar Kaur.  Mother of Mukhtiar Kaur
\ngot the land mutated by her own free will and
\nMukhtiar Kaur had no dispute about it. Balwinder
\nSingh her husband was addicted to vices and used
\nto beat her due to which she used to remain under
\ndepression and sick generally, and used to come to
\nme as my daughter. My house (kothi) is situated
\non the outer skirts of village Bangawali and door
\n(planks) had not been fixed so far to rooms.  Some
\nbody suddenly came and fired at me.  I fell down
\non the ground and became unconscious.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, I could not see what had happened to
\nMukhtiar Kaur as she was in other room.  Later on
\nI came to know that some body had fired at her
\nand she died.  I regained consciousness in
\nhospital.  The story of rape by me with her has
\nbeen fabricated by her husband as he is inimical
\ntowards me.  Even I do not know who took me to
\nhospital.  I have been implicated in this case
\nfalsely. <\/p>\n
\tThe trial court and the High Court relying on the
\ncircumstances available on the evidence convicted and
\nsentenced the appellant, as already mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tMr. Goburdhan, the learned counsel for the accused
\nhas raised several arguments in the course of hearing.  He has
\npointed out that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest
\nthat Mukhtiar Kaur had been subjected to rape and in this view
\nof the matter the very basis for the imposition of the death
\npenalty was not made out.  He has also pointed out that there
\nwere no eye witnesses to the incident and the 4 witnesses i.e.
\nJora Singh and others who had reached the place of incident
\nand carried the injured appellant to the hospital had also
\nresiled and as the prosecution story now rested on
\ncircumstantial evidence alone, it was imperative for the
\ninvestigating officer to have taken the finger prints from the
\nweapon and that in any case the recovery of the spent
\ncartridges and the gun were clearly suspicious as the weapon
\nhad been sent to the laboratory after an inordinate  delay.  It
\nhas also been submitted that in a case of attempted suicide a
\nfirearm must of necessity be used from a very close range and
\nthe absence of any blackening, charring or burning around the
\nwound on Ujjagar Singh clearly ruled out the possibility of such
\nan attempt.  It has finally been submitted that the land had
\nbeen transferred in the name of Ujjagar Singhs sons in the year
\n1994 by Gurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur by a collusive
\ndecree and there was no evidence to show that Mukhtiar Kaur
\nhad ever displayed any unhappiness or made any complaint to
\nany person or any authority with regard to the decree and as
\nsuch, the very basis of the prosecution story did not exist.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe learned State counsel has, however, supported the
\njudgment of the courts below.  He has further emphasized that
\nthe prosecutions case stood proved from various factors
\nincluding the medical evidence, the reports of the Forensic
\nScience Laboratory, the Chemical Examiner, from the post-
\nmortem reports and the recovery of the gun and cartridges.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
\ngone through the record.  We first take up for consideration the
\nquestion of the conviction under section 376 of the IPC.  We
\nfind from the medical evidence and from the chemical
\nexaminers reports that the vaginal swab and clothes taken from
\nthe dead body did indicate the presence of semen.  There is
\nhowever absolutely no evidence to suggest (even assuming that
\nthe intercourse had been committed by the appellant) that he
\nhad done so without Mukhtiar Kaurs consent or against her
\nwill.  Some suspicions of rape could perhaps have been raised
\nhad some tell tale injuries been detected on Mukhtiar Kaurs
\nperson but we find that the two injuries other than the gun shot
\nwounds i.e. injury No.3 being on the left pinna and No. 4 an
\nabrasion near the right eye do not indicate any attempt to rape
\nor the commission of rape.   It is also significant that the
\ninvestigators had made no attempt whatsoever to have the
\nappellant medically examined to ascertain his capacity to
\nperform sexual intercourse.  The learned State counsel relying
\non the statement of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh has
\nhowever submitted that the examination had not been possible
\nas the appellant had received a very serious gun shot injury and
\nwas hanging between life and death.  We agree with the
\nsubmission of the learned counsel that an examination could
\nnot have been carried out immediately but we see no
\njustification in the omission of the prosecution to have him
\nexamined after he had recovered his health and been
\ndischarged from hospital.  We are further of the opinion that
\neven assuming for a moment that sexual intercourse between
\nthe two had indeed taken place it cannot be said from the
\nevidence before us that it was without the consent or against
\nthe wishes of Mukhtiar Kaur.   We, therefore, find that Ujjagar
\nSinghs conviction under section 376 of the IPC cannot be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tMr. Goburdhan has placed great emphasis on the fact
\nthat as the four witnesses who had reached the place of
\nincident i.e. Jora Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurdeep Singh and
\nKulwant Singh had resiled from their statements and had
\ndisowned their initial stories, the prosecution had of necessity
\nto rely on circumstantial evidence and if the chain of
\ncircumstances remained incomplete or even if one link in the
\nchain was broken, the prosecution must fail.  He has also relied
\non the judgment of  Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra<\/a>
\n(2002) 7 SCC 543  to contend that it was open to the accused to
\ntake advantage (insofar as possible) from the statement of a
\nwitness though declared hostile and the four witnesses having
\ndisowned the prosecution story and having given a different
\nversion, the appellant was entitled to derive such benefit as
\npossible in this situation.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe learned State counsel has, however, emphasized
\nthat both the trial court and the High Court had for good
\nreasons opined that the circumstances made out a case for
\nconviction and the accused having given a counter version some
\nobligation lay on him as well to explain the circumstances
\nagainst him inasmuch that admittedly he and the victim were
\nalone in the house at the time of the incident.\t    Reliance for
\nthis argument has been placed on the decision of Raj Kumar
\nPrasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2007(1) SCALE 19\t.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tWe have considered their arguments very carefully. In
\nMahmood v. State of U.P.<\/a> (1976) 1 SCC 542 it has been
\nobserved that in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial
\nevidence the court must be satisfied\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthat the circumstances from which the inference of
\nguilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by
\nunimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthat the circumstances are of  a determinative
\ntendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
\naccused; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tthat the circumstances, taken collectively, are
\nincapable of explanation on any reasonable
\nhypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
In this case this Court held that the omission of the
\nprosecution, inter-alia, to have the finger prints found on the
\nalleged murder weapon was fatal to the prosecution story.  In
\n1984 (4) SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
\nMaharashtra,<\/a> this Court discussed the ratio of the judgments in
\nHanumant v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343, Tufail (Alias)
\nSimmi v. State of U.P. (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ramgopal v. State
\nof Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
\nv. State of Maharashtra<\/a> (1973) 2 SCC 793 and observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tA close analysis of this decision would show
\nthat the following conditions must be fulfilled before
\na case against an accused can be said to be fully
\nestablished:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tthe circumstances from which the
\nconclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
\nfully established.\n<\/p>\n
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
\ncircumstances concerned must or should and not
\nmay be established.  There is not only a grammatical
\nbut a legal distinction between may be proved and
\nmust be or should be proved as was held by this
\nCourt in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a> where the following observations were
\nmade : [SCC para 19,p.807 : SCC (cri) p.1047]<\/p>\n
\t\tCertainly, it is a primary principle that the
\naccused must be and not merely may be guilty before
\na court can convict and the mental distance between
\nmay be is long and divides vague conjectures from
\nsure conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tthe facts so established should be consistent
\nonly with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
\naccused, that is to say, they should not be
\nexplainable on any other hypothesis except
\nthat the accused is guilty,<\/p>\n
(3)\tthe circumstances should be of a conclusive
\nnature and tendency,<\/p>\n
(4)\tthey should exclude every possible
\nhypothesis except the one to be proved, and\t<\/p>\n
(5)\t there must be a chain of evidence so
\ncomplete as not to leave any reasonable ground
\nfor the conclusion consistent with the innocence
\nof the accused and must show that in all
\nhuman probability the act must have been done
\nby the accused. \t<\/p>\n
 12.\tMr. Goburdhan has also cited  Mahmood v. State of
\nU.P.<\/a> (1976) 1 SCC 542, Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a> (1981) 2 SCC 35, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
\nState of Maharashtra<\/a> (1984) 4 SCC 116, Omwati (Smt) and Ors.
\nV. Mahendra Singh & Ors.<\/a> (1998) 9 SCC 81, Sudama Pandey &
\nOrs. V. State of Bihar<\/a> (2002) 1 SCC 679, and R.R.Khanna
\nReddy & Anr. V. State of A.P.<\/a> (2006) 10 SCC 172  in support of
\nhis plea relating to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.
\nThese judgments have broadly followed the principles laid down
\nin the judgments referred to above and need not therefore be
\ndealt with us in extenso.  It must nonetheless be emphasized
\nthat whether  a chain is complete or not would depend on the
\nfacts of each case emanating from the evidence and no
\nuniversal yardstick should ever be attempted.  It is in this
\nbackground that we must examine the circumstances in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
13. \tA few facts stand out from the prosecution story.  First,
\nthe place of incident being adjoining rooms in the residential
\nhouse of the appellant and the fact that the alleged murder
\nweapon is his licensed DBBL gun is proved on record.  The
\nevidence also reveals that the appellant was living in the
\npremises along with his wife, mother and son, and two
\ndaughters, who were studying outside the village, were frequent
\nvisitors, but it is the admitted position that nobody but the
\nappellant and the deceased were present at the time of incident.
\nIt is also clear from the evidence that the two spent cartridge
\ncases recovered, one from near Mukhtiar Kaurs dead body, and
\nthe second from the right barrel of the gun lying near the
\nappellant had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
\nwhich opined that one of the cartridges had been fired from the
\ngun and the other could have been fired therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tMr. Goburdhan has, however, laid great emphasis on
\nthe fact that no reference to the gun or cartridges had been
\nmade in the inquest report and  that in any case the weapon
\nand the spent cartridges had been sent to the laboratory
\nbelatedly.  We are of the opinion, however, that no adverse
\ninference can be drawn from either of these circumstances.  The
\naforesaid articles had been carried to the Laboratory by
\nConstable Gopal Singh who in his affidavit dated 17th March
\n2003 deposed that he had first taken the articles to the
\nlaboratory on 9th December 2002 but they had been returned by
\nthe Director on the ground that the seals affixed thereon were
\nnot of the requisite number and that after removing the
\nobjections raised by the Director, the articles aforesaid had
\nbeen returned to the laboratory on 18th December 2002.  Gopal
\nSingh was cross-examined by the prosecution and but for some
\ninconsequential questions put to him with regard to the seals,
\nnot even a suggestion was made that the aforesaid articles had
\nin any way been tampered with.  It is true, as contended,  that
\nin Column 22 of the inquest report which refers to the articles
\nfound near the dead body, there is no reference to the spent
\ncartridges or the murder weapon but we find from a perusal of
\nthe site plan Exh.PJJ prepared by the investigating officer
\nInspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 on 10th November 2002
\nthat the weapon is shown lying close to the place where the
\nappellant had been found unconscious and a spent cartridge
\nrecovered from near the dead body of Mukhtiar Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt has also been submitted by Mr. Goburdhan that there
\nappeared to be no motive for the incident as the story about
\nMukhtiar Kaurs unhappiness about the transfer of land to the
\nsons of Ujjagar Singh sought to be proved by PW9 Balwinder
\nSingh and PW10 Karam Singh had been disbelieved by the High
\nCourt with the observation that the statements of these two
\nwitnesses could not be relied upon. It is true that in a case
\nrelating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great
\nimportance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge
\nthe entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an
\nimportance which is not due and (to use the clichi) the motive
\nis in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with
\nany degree of accuracy.  There is however a hint in the
\ntestimony of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh that his
\nenquiries had revealed that the accused was having illicit
\nrelations with Mukhtiar Kaur and we can assume that some
\nthing untoward had happened which could have triggered the
\nvolatile and hostile incident.  There could perhaps be some
\ntruth in this suggestion, as it is significant that though the
\nappellant had an extended family living with him i.e. mother,
\nwife, son living (in the village) and two young daughters who
\nwere studying outside and residing in a hostel, but were
\nfrequent visitors home, yet none of them has come forth to
\ndepose in his favour.  To our mind, therefore, this is yet another
\ncircumstance inculpating the accused.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tMr. Goburdhan has also laid much stress on the
\napparent discordance between the prosecution story and the
\nmedical evidence and has argued that had the accused
\nattempted to commit suicide, the gun shot must, of necessity,
\nhad to be fired from a very close range on which the wound
\nwould have marks of burning or charring and that in any event
\na full blooded shot from a very close range would have torn his
\nface apart.  He has in this connection referred us to the
\nstatement of Dr. Ripan Miglani PW15 and the wound found on
\nthe appellant at the time of his medical examination in the
\nDepartment of Surgery of the Dayanand Medical College &
\nHospital, Ludhiana which was
\n     \t About 15 x 8 cm curvilinear wound present
\non the left half of face extending upto bone.  No
\nblackening or foreign body was visible.  Underlying
\nmuscles were exposed and contamination was
\npresent.<\/p>\n
17.\tHe has thus urged that the absence of any blackening
\nunderlined the argument that the shot had been fired from
\nsome distance and as such an attempt at suicide was clearly to
\nbe ruled out.  He has also drawn our attention to the cross-
\nexamination of the Doctor wherein he reiterated that there was
\nno visible blackening and that it was not possible for him to say
\nwhether the injury was suicidal or otherwise.  The learned State
\ncounsel has, however, relied on the statement of PW16 Dr.
\nSanjay Uppal, who was apparently the first doctor to have
\nexamined the appellant, wherein he clearly testified that the
\nblackened portion around the firearm injury had been removed
\nby him.   We are therefore of the opinion that this statement
\nfalsifies Mr. Goburdhans argument on this aspect.  It is also
\nsignificant that the shot had apparently travelled upwards
\nskirting the mandible, through the flesh of the cheek in an
\nupward direction with minimal damage to the bone structure
\nand it is indeed providential that the appellant got away with
\nonly an injury, albeit a very serious one.  The fact that the shot
\nwas fired from below going upwards is also supported by the
\nsite plan Exh.PJJ wherein marks of a shot hitting the roof were
\nseen at point E whereas the appellant was found lying at point
\nD in the same room.  It is therefore apparent that the weapon
\nhad indeed been fired by the appellant from a close range and
\nthat the blackened portion around the wound had been
\nremoved by Dr. Sanjay Uppal.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe learned State counsel has emphasized that in the
\nlight of the admitted position that the accused and the deceased
\nwere the only ones present at the time of incident and that the
\naccused had projected a counter story, some credible
\nexplanation was also expected from him.  Reference has been
\nmade to Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkars case (supra) wherein in
\ncircumstances surprisingly akin to the present matter, this
\nCourt had the following observations to make:\n<\/p>\n
     \t\tThe conspectus of the events which had
\nbeen noticed by the learned Sessions Judge as also by
\nthe High Court categorically go to show that at the
\ntime when the occurrence took place, the deceased
\nand the respondent only were in the bedroom and the
\nterrace connecting the same.  There was no other
\nperson.  The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi
\ni.e. by a gun shot injury is not disputed.  The fact that
\nthe terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other
\nis not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
     \tThe autopsy report shows that a blackening
\nand charring existed so far as Injury No.(i) is
\nconcerned.  The blackening and charring keeping in
\nview the nature of the firearm, which is said to have
\nbeen used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from
\na short distance.  Blackening or charring is possible
\nwhen a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to
\n3 feet.  It, therefore, cannot be a case where the death
\nmight have been caused by somebody by firing a shot
\nat the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet.
\nThe place of injury is also important.  The lacerated
\nwound was found over grabella (middle of forehead).  It
\ngoes a long way to show that the same must have been
\ndone by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from
\na short distance.  There was, thus a remote possibility
\nof causation of such type of injury by any other
\nperson, who was not in the terrace.  Once the
\nprosecution has been able to show that at the relevant
\ntime, the room and terrace were in exclusive
\noccupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon
\nthe respondent to show under what circumstances
\ndeath was caused to his wife.  The onus was on him.
\nHe failed to discharge the same.<\/p>\n
19.\tWe have considered the submission of the State counsel
\nvery carefully.  It is true that it is generally for the prosecution
\nto prove its case beyond doubt but in circumstances such as
\nthe present one, some explanation is also due from an accused
\nin order to absolve himself from suspicion of the crime.  In his
\nstatement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.  his positive stand
\nwas that he alone had been in the house with Mukhtiar Kaur
\nwhen she had been killed and indeed as per Exhibit P.JJ
\nMukhtiar Kaurs body had been found only one Karam (5 feet)
\naway from the place where the appellant lay injured.  It must be
\nemphasized that but for this self serving statement made by the
\nappellant, there is nothing on record to support his positive
\nstance.  Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that had the shot
\nbeen fired by some intruder, the direction would have been
\nmore or less horizontal and parallel to the ground and not from
\ndown upwards with the pellets hitting the jaw, skirting the
\ncheek and hitting the roof at point E.  In Modis Medical
\nJurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) at page 765 while
\ndealing with identification of homicidal and suicidal injuries it
\nhas been observed that :\n<\/p>\n
   \tA suicidal firearm wound is usually a contact
\nwound situated on the side of the temple, depending on
\nwhich hand was used to shoot himself, in the centre of
\nthe forehead, the roof of the mouth, in the chest or
\nepigastrium in front or the left side and some times
\nunder the chin. The firearm is usually fired at close
\nrange.  A small weapon like a revolver or a pistol is held
\nin the hand, while a rifle or a shot gun is supported on
\nthe ground or against the wall.  Sometimes, the firing is
\ndone by pulling a string tied to the trigger by the big toe.
\nThe skin around the entry wound shows characteristic
\nblackening, scorching and tattooing. In such cases the
\nhand used to steady the weapon at the muzzle may be
\nblackened and scorched and may also be stained with
\nsquirting of the blood from the injured arteries.
\n\tIn homicidal and accidental shooting, the wound
\nmay be on any part of the body and the path of the
\nbullet may be in any direction.  Homicidal shooting by
\ndacoits is not uncommon in India, and they are known
\nto make their own firearms.  Immediate death following
\na firearm wound is uncommon and even when vital
\norgans are injured, a person may be capable of doing
\nextraordinary things.  Sometimes, firearm wounds may
\nlook like knife slashes or a bullet hole may resemble a
\npenetrating stab wound, if the bullet strikes the head of
\nshoulder at an angle or when an unstable bullet
\nregisters a broadside hit.  A Fateh describes a rare
\nhomicidal gun shot wound of the mouth, where the
\nentry wound was in the tongue and the direction was
\nhorizontally backward, while in suicidal wounds the
\ndirection is upwardsentrance would be in the palate
\nor posterior pharynx. <\/p>\n
20.\tDr. B.R.Sharma in his Book Forensic Science in
\nCriminal Investigation and Trials (Fourth Edition), at Page 1160
\ntoo has delineated the circumstances that could indicate
\nsuicide and while referring to the site of the injury has
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
Certain sites are predominantly used by suicides
\nfor self-inflicted injuries.  For example, with firearm,
\ntemple,forehead,mouth and chest are the favourite
\nsites.  With knife throat and wrist are the favourite
\nsites.  Hesitation injuries are also observed in some
\nsuicide cases.<\/p>\n
21.\tIt is, therefore, clear to us that the story of unknown
\nassailants entering the house and causing Mukhtiar Kaurs
\nmurder etcetera has to be ruled out and that the prosecution
\nstory that it was the appellant who had first shot Mukhtiar
\nKaur and then attempted to commit suicide, stands proved.
\nWe also find that no part of the evidence of the hostile witnesses
\ncomes to the aid of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThe question now arises as to the sentence that should
\nbe imposed on the appellant.  It would be seen that both the
\nSessions Court and the High Court were appalled by the
\nallegations and findings of incestuous rape and murder.  We are
\nhowever of the opinion, as already noted above, that a case of
\nrape has not been made out.   In this background the death
\nsentence is not called for.  We accordingly acquit the appellant
\nof the charge under section 376 of the IPC but maintain his
\nconviction for the other offences but commute his death
\nsentence to life.\n<\/p>\n
    23.\tWith this modification, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 Author: H S Bedi Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1044 of 2006 PETITIONER: Ujjagar Singh RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-150375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUjjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - 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\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T01:26:03+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T01:26:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":5101,\"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\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T01:26:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - 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\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T01:26:03+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T01:26:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007"},"wordCount":5101,"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\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007","name":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T01:26:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ujjagar-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ujjagar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/150375","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=150375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}