{"id":160388,"date":"2009-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-05T19:04:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T13:34:49","slug":"sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA\n\n         AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n                         Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.\n\n                         DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009\n\n\nSukhwinder Singh\n\n                                       Appellant.\n\n                   VERSUS\nState of Punjab\n\n                                      Respondent.\n\n\n                         Crl. Revision No. 536 of 2000.\n\n                         DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009\n\n\nKishan Singh and another\n\n                                       Petitioners.\n\n\n                   VERSUS\n\nArjan Dass and others.\n\n                                      Respondents.\n\n\n\n\nCORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\n\n\nPresent: Mr. S.K.Pipat, Sr.Advocate, with\n         Mr. Ramanjit Singh, Advocate, for\n         appellant.\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                 2\n\n         Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with\n         Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu\n         Goel, Advocate, for the revisionist.\n\n         Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,\n         Punjab.\n\n\nJORA SINGH,J.\n<\/pre>\n
         Through        the      instant   criminal    appeal,<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh has impugned the judgment\/order<\/p>\n
dated 27.1.2000 rendered by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur<\/p>\n
in Sessions case No. 46 of 5.11.1998, Sessions trial No. 4<\/p>\n
of 3.2.1999, in First Information Report No. 42 dated<\/p>\n
9.4.1998 Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur,<\/p>\n
under sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code. By this judgment, appellant was convicted under<\/p>\n
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was<\/p>\n
sentenced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         (i)under Section 302 IPC            Imprisonment for<\/p>\n
           life.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)Under   Section     201   IPC            Rigorous<\/p>\n
           Imprisonment for two years and a fine of<\/p>\n
           Rs.1000\/-. In default of payment of fine he<\/p>\n
           shall further undergo RI for one month.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Co-accused namely Arjan Dass, Sheela Devi,<\/p>\n
Shakuntla Rani and Meena Rani were acquitted of the
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             3<\/span><\/p>\n
charge levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
         Against acquittal of Arjan Dass and others, no<\/p>\n
appeal by the State    but   Criminal Revision No. 536 of<\/p>\n
2000 has been filed by Kishan Singh and Smt. Parkash<\/p>\n
Kaur on the allegation that revision be accepted and the<\/p>\n
accused persons acquitted by the trial Court may kindly<\/p>\n
be convicted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
         Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.4.1998<\/p>\n
DDR (Ex.DA) was recorded at 10.05 A.M. at the instance<\/p>\n
of   Kishan Singh on the allegation that his daughter<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur     was married with Sukhwinder Singh<\/p>\n
about one year back.         After marriage, in laws of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur     used to quarrel   with her and on so<\/p>\n
many times, Ravinderjit Kaur and her in laws        were<\/p>\n
made to understand. On 4.4.1998, at 6 P.M.Sukhwinder<\/p>\n
Singh came and reported that Ravinderjit Kaur        had<\/p>\n
some scuffle with entire family. He had gone to the<\/p>\n
house of Sukhwinder Singh to enquire about the dispute.<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur      and her in laws were made to<\/p>\n
understand and at 9 P.M. he came back to his village<\/p>\n
Dhariwal.    Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher in the<\/p>\n
Government Primary School, Mirjapur. His sister in law
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.               4<\/span><\/p>\n
 was married    in village Mirjapur and her        house was<\/p>\n
near the school. He came to know that Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
did not attend the school. Then he had gone to the house<\/p>\n
of Sukhwinder Singh to enquire about Ravinderjit Kaur.<\/p>\n
In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur replied that on 5.4.1998,<\/p>\n
early in the morning Ravinderjit Kaur            had left the<\/p>\n
matrimonial    house.   An   effort   was   made    to   locate<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur but she was not traceable.<\/p>\n
         In view of the statement of Kishan Singh,<\/p>\n
intimation was given to different police stations to the<\/p>\n
effect that Ravinderjit Kaur is missing.<\/p>\n
         On 9.4.1998 Surinder Pal Singh Sub Inspector<\/p>\n
in connection with the investigation of the case           had<\/p>\n
gone to village Dhariwal.     Statement of Parkash Kaur<\/p>\n
(Ex.PA) was recorded. Parkash Kaur reported that she is<\/p>\n
a teacher   in the Government Primary School, village<\/p>\n
Kotla Naudh Singh. She has one daughter and two sons.<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh,<\/p>\n
resident of village Kotha Hansian about one year back.<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher in the Government<\/p>\n
Primary School, Mirjapur. Sukhwinder Singh was also a<\/p>\n
teacher in the Government High School, Bhattlan.            On<\/p>\n
4.4.1998 at about 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to<\/p>\n
village Dhariwal. Her husband was also present in the
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
house then Sukhwinder Singh reported that Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur had some altercation with the family.                   Her<\/p>\n
husband had gone to the house of Sukhwinder Singh to<\/p>\n
enquire about the dispute and came back at 9.30 P.M.<\/p>\n
with the report that in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were<\/p>\n
quarrelling with her by saying that Ravinderjit Kaur is<\/p>\n
not fit to perform domestic work and has no sense. He<\/p>\n
was requested to bring Ravinderjit Kaur to her parental<\/p>\n
house for about eight\/ten days. In laws of Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur told that they will send her ( Ravinderjit Kaur) on<\/p>\n
5.4.1998.       On 5.4.1998      Ravinderjit Kaur failed to<\/p>\n
return.    On 6.4.1998 while returning from her school,<\/p>\n
enquired from the students of Government Primary,<\/p>\n
School, Mirjapur       about     Ravinderjit Kaur, then she<\/p>\n
came to know that Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend her<\/p>\n
school. At 1.30 P.M. she came to her house              but her<\/p>\n
husband was not present in the house. At about 1.35<\/p>\n
P.M.,     her   husband   came    then   she   told   him    that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school on 6.4.1998.<\/p>\n
She along with her husband had gone to village Kothe<\/p>\n
Hansian. All the family members were present in the<\/p>\n
house     and    on   inquiry   family   members      told   that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was sent in the morning at 7 A.M. by<\/p>\n
bus but family members did not disclose by whom and
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
which bus was boarded by           Ravinderjit Kaur.      Efforts<\/p>\n
were made to find out Ravinderjit Kaur but she was not<\/p>\n
traceable. They are definite that Ravinderjit Kaur was<\/p>\n
murdered by her in-laws and dead body was disposed of<\/p>\n
because in laws of         Ravinderjit Kaur used to quarrel<\/p>\n
with her. Five\/six days earlier, Sheela had given beating<\/p>\n
to Ravinderjit Kaur. Statement of Parkash Kaur was<\/p>\n
recorded by Sub Inspector Surinder Pal. Statement was<\/p>\n
read over and explained to Parkash Kaur, who had<\/p>\n
signed the same in English. After making endorsement,<\/p>\n
statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of<\/p>\n
which formal First Information Report was recorded.<\/p>\n
           After completion of investigation, challan was<\/p>\n
presented against five accused.\n<\/p>\n
           Vide order dated 22.10.1998, passed by Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate       Ist   Class,   Hoshiarpur,     this   case   was<\/p>\n
committed to Court of Session, Hoshiarpur for trial.<\/p>\n
           After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State,<\/p>\n
defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of<\/p>\n
documents on the file, trial Court opined that a prima<\/p>\n
facie case is made out against the accused under<\/p>\n
Sections    302\/201       I.P.C.   and   they    were    charged<\/p>\n
accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and<\/p>\n
claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             7<\/span><\/p>\n
           In order to substantiate the charges, the<\/p>\n
prosecution examined PW-1 Parkash Kaur mother of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur who stated that Ravinderjit Kaur was<\/p>\n
married with Sukhwinder Singh about one year ago.<\/p>\n
One month after the marriage,      in laws of   Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur started quarrelling with her on the allegation that<\/p>\n
she is not doing domestic work and she is also not<\/p>\n
obeying to their command. On 4.4.1998, Sukhwinder<\/p>\n
Singh came and reported that his family members had<\/p>\n
altercation with     Ravinderjit Kaur. On the request of<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh, her husband had gone to inquire<\/p>\n
about the dispute. At 9.30 P.M. Kishan Singh came and<\/p>\n
reported that in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were blaming<\/p>\n
her that she is unable to do     house hold jobs and     is<\/p>\n
disobedient. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were requested<\/p>\n
to send Ravinderjit Kaur. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
assured that       Ravinderjit Kaur will be sent in the<\/p>\n
morning on the next day. But Ravinderjit Kaur failed to<\/p>\n
come. On 6.4.1998 while returning from her school, she<\/p>\n
came to know from the students of Mirjapur school that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school.      After that<\/p>\n
she along with her husband       had gone to the house of<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh and on inquiry          from in-laws of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur came to know that she was sent by
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.              8<\/span><\/p>\n
bus at 7 A.M.       Ravinderjit Kaur is not traceable.<\/p>\n
Application was given to the police.\n<\/p>\n
         PW-2     Kishan     Singh     is   the    father    of\n\nRavinderjit Kaur. He has supported          the version of\n\nParkash Kaur.\n\n<\/pre>\n
         PW-3 Harbhajan Kaur teacher of Government<\/p>\n
Primary School, Mirjapur stated that Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
did not attend the school on 6.4.1998. Telephonic<\/p>\n
message was received from the husband of Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur that she is on leave.\n<\/p>\n
    PW-4 Yashpal Kaur is the aunt of Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
and stated that    Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher           and<\/p>\n
was murdered      on the night of 4.4.1998.       Relations of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur with her in laws were not cordial. On<\/p>\n
6.4.1998 she received telephone call from Sukhwinder<\/p>\n
Singh that    Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend School.<\/p>\n
Application for leave is to be sent. She had gone to the<\/p>\n
school at 9 A.M. and had contacted teacher Smt.<\/p>\n
Harbhajan Kaur. At 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to<\/p>\n
inquire about Ravinderjit Kaur by saying that she had<\/p>\n
minor dispute with her family members.<\/p>\n
         Statement of Sub Inspector Manjit Singh-PW5<\/p>\n
is of formal nature because he had simply            executed<\/p>\n
warrants and had arrested Arjan Dass, Sheela Devi,
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             9<\/span><\/p>\n
Meena Rani and Shakuntla accused.\n<\/p>\n
         PW-6 Sub Inspector        Harbhajan Singh had<\/p>\n
scribed formal First Information Report Ex.PA\/1.<\/p>\n
         PW-7 Sub Inspector Surinder Pal           is the\n\nInvestigating Officer.    On 9.4.1998 in connection with\n\n<\/pre>\n
the investigation of this case, as per DDR, he had gone to<\/p>\n
village Dhaliwal and had recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
Parkash Kaur Ex.PA. He had investigated the spot and<\/p>\n
prepared rough site plan Ex.PB.\n<\/p>\n
         After the close of prosecution evidence, the<\/p>\n
accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to<\/p>\n
explain the allegations, levelled against them. Accused<\/p>\n
denied all the allegations and pleaded to be innocent.<\/p>\n
Defence version of all the accused was that before the<\/p>\n
marriage of Sukhwinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh was<\/p>\n
bearing all the household expenses     of the family and<\/p>\n
after marriage Ravinderjit Kaur was not interested to<\/p>\n
live jointly in the house. She had left   their house on<\/p>\n
5.4.1998 by saying that she was going to her parental<\/p>\n
house after that she did not return.\n<\/p>\n
         In defence DW-1Sarabjit Kaur stated that her<\/p>\n
house is in front of the house of Sukhwinder Singh. On<\/p>\n
5.4.1998 at   7 A.M.     she was standing in front of her<\/p>\n
house. Ravinderjit Kaur was passing by the side of her
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             10<\/span><\/p>\n
house. She had inquired from       Ravinderjit Kaur as to<\/p>\n
where she is going then     Ravinderjit Kaur replied that<\/p>\n
she is going to her parental house.\n<\/p>\n
            DW-2 Smt. Raj Kumari      stated that she was<\/p>\n
teacher in Government Primary School, Hariana since<\/p>\n
4.1.1986.     Gurminder Singh son of Ranjit Singh was<\/p>\n
admitted in the school on 12.10.1993 and his date of<\/p>\n
birth is 15.10.1985. Daljit Kaur daughter of Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh was admitted in the school on 12.10.1993 and her<\/p>\n
date of birth is 24.10.1987.Binderjit Kaur daughter of<\/p>\n
Ranjit Singh was admitted in the school on 4.5.1996 and<\/p>\n
her date of birth is 24.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n
            After hearing Public Prosecutor for the state,<\/p>\n
defence counsel for the accused and also from the<\/p>\n
perusal of the evidence, learned trial Court opined that<\/p>\n
accused Sukhwinder Singh          has committed    offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 302\/201 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code and was sentenced as stated aforesaid.<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned defence counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Punjab and Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.<\/p>\n
S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu       Goel,    Advocates,<\/p>\n
for the revisionist.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant argued that
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
there is no evidence qua murder or disposing the body<\/p>\n
either direct or indirect. Case is based on suspicion.<\/p>\n
Suspicion     cannot   take   the    place   of    proof.      First<\/p>\n
Information     Report    was       registered         after    the<\/p>\n
investigation had started. All the family members were<\/p>\n
implicated.     No single circumstance to connect the<\/p>\n
appellant-accused with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
         Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Punjab and Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.<\/p>\n
S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu          Goel, Advocate, for<\/p>\n
the revisionist argued that           Ravinderjit Kaur was<\/p>\n
married with Sukhwinder Singh one year earlier to the<\/p>\n
present occurrence.      Ravinderjit Kaur was not having<\/p>\n
cordial relation with her in laws. Ravinderjit Kaur was a<\/p>\n
teacher and as per defence version           she has left the<\/p>\n
house of her in laws at about 7 A.M. on 5.4.1998.;<\/p>\n
Accused was to explain where she had gone why she is<\/p>\n
missing. Sukhwinder Singh was rightly convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced. No reasonable explanation to acquit the co-<\/p>\n
accused namely Arjan Dass and others.\n<\/p>\n
         First submission of learned defence counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant was that no evidence qua murder or to<\/p>\n
dispose of    the body. Case is based on suspicion and<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence. We have gone through the
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.             12<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence    on the file and      are of the view that the<\/p>\n
submission of learned defence counsel seems to be<\/p>\n
correct one. Undisputedly,        Ravinderjit Kaur was a<\/p>\n
teacher    and she was married with Sukhwinder Singh<\/p>\n
one year earlier    to the present occurrence. No oral or<\/p>\n
documentary evidence that Ravinderjit Kaur had some<\/p>\n
dispute with appellant   before the present occurrence or<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was not having cordial relation with<\/p>\n
her-in-laws. As per Parkash Kaur, few days before the<\/p>\n
present occurrence Ravinderjit Kaur was given beating<\/p>\n
by her mother in law but allegation of Parkash Kaur is<\/p>\n
not correct one as, statement of Parkash Kaur        was<\/p>\n
recorded on 9.4.1998 at 11.05 A.M. whereas DDR No.9<\/p>\n
dated 7.4.1998 was recorded at the instance of Krishan<\/p>\n
Singh. Krishan Singh did not state a word that few days<\/p>\n
earlier    Ravinderjit Kaur was given beating by her<\/p>\n
mother-in -law.     In case,     Ravinderjit Kaur was not<\/p>\n
having cordial relations and was given beatings, five\/six<\/p>\n
days earlier to the present occurrence, then matter<\/p>\n
should have been brought to the notice of police    or to<\/p>\n
the Panchayat.     As per evidence, Ravinderjit Kaur had<\/p>\n
quarrel with her in laws on 4.4.1998 and on the same<\/p>\n
day Sukhwinder Singh came to the house of complainant<\/p>\n
and reported that     Ravinderjit Kaur has some dispute
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.               13<\/span><\/p>\n
with her in laws and on the request of Sukhwinder<\/p>\n
Singh,   Kishan   Singh    had   gone   to   the    house   of<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh to inquire about the dispute. In laws<\/p>\n
were requested to send Ravinderjit Kaur to her parental<\/p>\n
house then on the same day Kishan Singh should have<\/p>\n
brought back Ravinderjit Kaur from her-in-laws house.<\/p>\n
There was no idea for     Ravinderjit Kaur to leave her in<\/p>\n
laws house on the next day in the morning i.e. 5.4.1998.<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur as per story was to leave her in laws<\/p>\n
house in the morning on 5.4.1989 but till evening she did<\/p>\n
not visit her parental house. On 5.4.1998 no report to the<\/p>\n
police. On 6.4.1998 Parkash Kaur as per story had gone<\/p>\n
to her school     while returning from school, she had<\/p>\n
inquired from the children of Government Primary<\/p>\n
School, Mirjapur about the presence of             Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur.     Children   reported    to   Parkash      Kaur   that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school on 6.4.1998.<\/p>\n
Parkash Kaur came to her house and later on in the<\/p>\n
evening Parkash Kaur along with her husband Kishan<\/p>\n
Singh had gone to the house of Sukwinder Singh as to<\/p>\n
where is Ravinderjit Kaur. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
had reported that on 5.4.1998 at 7 A.M.            Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur had left her in laws house but after report by the<\/p>\n
in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur, no report was lodged with
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
the police on 6.4.1998. According to Parkash Kaur                 on<\/p>\n
6.4.1998, application in writing was given to the police<\/p>\n
but that application is not on the file.           No explanation<\/p>\n
from the side of prosecution where that application has<\/p>\n
gone. For the first time, DDR No. 9 was got recorded by<\/p>\n
Kishan Singh on 7.4.1998. If Ravinderjit Kaur had left<\/p>\n
her in laws house on 5.4.1998 at about 7A.M. and she<\/p>\n
was not traceable then report should have been lodged<\/p>\n
immediately. There was no idea to record DDR only on<\/p>\n
7.4.1998 and register First Information Report                 on the<\/p>\n
statement      of    Parkash     Kaur    dated    9.4.1998.     When<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was missing as per                reply by the in<\/p>\n
laws of Ravinderjit Kaur, Ravinderjit Kaur had left her<\/p>\n
in laws house on 5.4.1998 at 7 A.M.                  Dead body of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was not recovered by the police till that<\/p>\n
day. No article of the deceased was recovered at the<\/p>\n
instance of any of the accused.            As per DW1 namely<\/p>\n
Sarabjit Kaur, Ravinderjit Kaur                was seen alone at 7<\/p>\n
A.M.   on   5.4.1998.       So   the    only    circumstance     that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh<\/p>\n
and on 4.4.1998 she was in her in laws house and was<\/p>\n
seen alone on 5.4.1998 at about 7 A.M. is not sufficient<\/p>\n
to   connect        the   appellant-accused      with    the   crime.<\/p>\n
Nothing     to      presume      that   Ravinderjit      Kaur    was
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
murdered       and    dead      body   was    disposed     of.   In<\/p>\n
K.T.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008(1) R.C.R.<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 870. Hon’ble Supreme Court            held that in a<\/p>\n
murder     case,      no   eye    witness-     case    based     on<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence. Dead body not recovered- death<\/p>\n
of the deceased must be established like any other fact-<\/p>\n
conviction cannot be based on last seen evidence. In the<\/p>\n
present   case,      evidence    qua   last   seen    inspires   no<\/p>\n
confidence.\n<\/p>\n
          Last submission of the learned defence counsel<\/p>\n
was that there is delay in lodging the First Information<\/p>\n
Report.   First Information Report was registered after<\/p>\n
investigation was started. All the family members were<\/p>\n
implicated. Submission of learned defence counsel is<\/p>\n
correct one.    Ravinderjit Kaur was missing with effect<\/p>\n
from 5.4.1998. On 6.4.1998 Parkash Kaur and Kishan<\/p>\n
Singh had the knowledge that             Ravinderjit Kaur was<\/p>\n
missing because she was to visit her parental house in<\/p>\n
the morning on 5.4.1998 being Sunday. On 5.4.1998 or<\/p>\n
6.4.1998 no report to the police. Application in writing<\/p>\n
was given on 6.4.1998 but no action was taken by the<\/p>\n
police.   Statement of Parkash Kaur was recorded on<\/p>\n
9.4.1998(Ex.PA). After that formal First Information<\/p>\n
Report was recorded. Investigating Officer Surinder Pal
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
in examination in chief did not state a word that before<\/p>\n
9.4.1998 any written complaint was received from the<\/p>\n
side of complainant party. In cross examination Surinder<\/p>\n
Pal stated that on 6.4.1998 no complaint in writing was<\/p>\n
given by Kishan Singh to the effect that              Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur is missing. He further admitted that there was no<\/p>\n
entry in the police record that on 7.4.1998 he had gone<\/p>\n
to the house of Ravinderjit Kaur. Lastly admitted that<\/p>\n
as per police diary dated 6.5.1998, Kishan Singh had<\/p>\n
reported that     Ravinderjit Kaur had never made a<\/p>\n
complaint regarding maltreatment               by her in laws.<\/p>\n
Yaspal Kaur also reported that Ravinderjit Kaur never<\/p>\n
complained about any harassment by her in laws.                On<\/p>\n
9.4.1998, Dharminder Kumar President of Municipal<\/p>\n
committee, Ram Lubhaya, Bimla Devi and Hardev Singh<\/p>\n
were joined in the investigation and              they did not<\/p>\n
complain regarding maltreatment by the in laws of<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit     Kaur.     Statement       of     Surinder     Pal<\/p>\n
Investigating   Officer   falsify   the   prosecution       story.<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh and his family members                had never<\/p>\n
maltreated    Ravinderjit Kaur. When           Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
had no dispute with her in laws as per case diary. Then<\/p>\n
defence version seems to be probable that on 5.4.1998<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur had left her in laws house by saying
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                17<\/span><\/p>\n
that she is going to her parental house. In case before<\/p>\n
4.4.1998 in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur had some dispute<\/p>\n
with her only then in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur can be<\/p>\n
expected to do some mischief.        Ravinderjit Kaur being<\/p>\n
teacher    used   to   visit   Government   Primary    School,<\/p>\n
Mirjapur. 5.4.1998 was Sunday so            Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
was expected to visit her          parents house at village<\/p>\n
Dhaliwal. In case      Ravinderjit Kaur was missing since<\/p>\n
5.4.1998 then nothing to presume that Sukhwinder<\/p>\n
Singh and his family members were at fault and           after<\/p>\n
murder, they have disposed of the dead body.<\/p>\n
           PW-4 Yaspal Kaur is the sister of Parkash<\/p>\n
Kaur and in examination in chief stated that Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur was murdered on 4.4.1998 but in the next line<\/p>\n
stated that on 6.4.1998 telephone call was received from<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh that           Ravinderjit Kaur is not to<\/p>\n
attend the school on that date. At 9 A.M. she had gone to<\/p>\n
school to inform that Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend<\/p>\n
school. At 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to inquire<\/p>\n
about     Ravinderjit Kaur.      If on 4.4.1998    Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur was murdered by her in laws then why on 6.4.1998<\/p>\n
Yaspal Kaur had gone to school to give information that<\/p>\n
Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend the school on that day.<\/p>\n
If in the morning, on 6.4.1998 Sukhwinder Singh had
\n Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
reported    that     Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend the<\/p>\n
school then in the evening at 6 P.M. there was no idea<\/p>\n
with Sukhwinder Singh to visit the house of Yaspal Kaur<\/p>\n
to inquire about      Ravinderjit Kaur.   Statement of PW4<\/p>\n
Yaspal Kaur was recorded on 8.4.1998. No record of<\/p>\n
telephone department was produced that on 6.4.1998<\/p>\n
in the morning on telephone Sukhwinder Singh had<\/p>\n
informed Yaspal Kaur that on that day Ravinderjit Kaur<\/p>\n
is not to attend the school. So, statement of Yaspal Kaur<\/p>\n
seems to be not natural one. Parkash Kaur and Kishan<\/p>\n
Singh are the parents of         Ravinderjit Kaur. They are<\/p>\n
very much interested in the success of this case.<\/p>\n
Statement of Kishan Singh is contrary to the statement<\/p>\n
of     Parkash     Kaur.   When    the   case   is    based   on<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence then chain of circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence should be complete.\n<\/p>\n
           No other contention was put forward.\n<\/p>\n
           Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on<\/p>\n
file   and wrongly opined that Sukhwinder Singh, after<\/p>\n
murder, has disposed of the dead body of             Ravinderjit<\/p>\n
Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000 filed by<\/p>\n
Sukhwinder Singh is accepted. He is acquitted of the<\/p>\n
charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.           19<\/span><\/p>\n
         Criminal Revision No. 536 of 2000 is also<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 ( JORA SINGH )
\n                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
25.02.2009.                      ( JASBIR SINGH )
\n                                     JUDGE
\nAnoop\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009 Sukhwinder Singh Appellant. VERSUS State of Punjab Respondent. Crl. Revision No. 536 of 2000. DECIDED […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - 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\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-05T13:34:49+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=\"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\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T13:34:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3421,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T13:34:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - 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\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-05T13:34:49+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T13:34:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009"},"wordCount":3421,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009","name":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T13:34:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhwinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/160388","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=160388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}