{"id":161380,"date":"2004-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-01T12:03:01","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T06:33:01","slug":"harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: P Reddi<\/div>\n
Bench: P.Venkatarama Reddi, B.P. Singh.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  916 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nHarjinder Singh @ Bhola\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nP.VENKATARAMA REDDI & B.P. SINGH.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThree persons including the appellant herein, were charged
\nfor the murder of Gurpreet Singh on the night of 30th January,
\n1994, at village Ranguwal.  The appellant together with one
\nManjit Singh was charged under Section 302 IPC, read with
\nSection 34 IPC.  It appears that the second accused Manjit Singh
\nhas been absconding and the trial proceeded only against the
\nappellant.  The other accused, namely Sohan Singh, who was
\ncharged under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, died
\nduring the course of trial. The Sessions Court convicted  the
\nappellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and
\nsentenced him to life imprisonment.  The High Court upheld the
\nconviction and dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case, as revealed by the FIR lodged by
\nMohinder Singh, the father of the deceased and his deposition in
\nCourt is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the crucial date, when the informant (P.W.3)   returned
\nto his house at about 7 p.m., his wife told him that their son
\nGurpreet Singh left the house at about 5 p.m in the company of
\nthe two accused as the accused wanted his presence at Jorahan
\nVillage for settling the dispute between Jarnail Singh and Ranjit
\nSingh (P.W.4).  As his son did not return till 7.30 p.m., Mohinder
\nSingh (P.W.3) decided to search for him and he first went to
\nvillage Jorahan.  Ranjit Singh (P.W.4) also joined him in the
\nsearch at Jorahan which according to the evidence of the
\nInvestigating Officer (P.W.11) is at a distance of about 1.5 kms.
\nfrom Ranguwal.  Not finding him there, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were
\ncoming back to Village Ranguwal.  It was about 10 p.m (9 or 9.15
\np.m as per the deposition) when they reached the Primary School
\nat Ranguwal.  They witnessed the attack on the deceased by the
\ntwo accused in front of the Primary School building.  The
\nappellant placed a ‘Pharna’ (scarf) around the neck of the
\ndeceased after pushing him down to the ground and he continued
\nto press the neck with Pharna.  The other accused namely, Manjit
\nSingh took out knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries on the
\nface of the deceased.  At that stage P.Ws. 3 and 4 raised hue and
\ncry.  They were warned and threatened to leave the place.  Soon
\nafter the accused left the place, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were able to go to
\nthe spot and noticed that Gurpreet Singh succumbed to the
\ninjuries.  P.W.3 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence in
\nmoonlight and also with the aid of a torch.  Some persons
\nincluding Chowkidar Nahar Singh and his servant Pritam Singh
\ncame to the spot immediately after the occurrence.  Leaving
\nthem with the dead body, P.Ws. 3 and 4 set out to the police
\nstation on motorcycle (moped) for reporting the matter.
\n\tThe motive is said to be that the deceased was helping
\nRanjit Singh (P.W.4) and the appellant was helping his cousin
\nJarnail Singh in a dispute relating to a plot in Village Joharan.
\nIt comes out in evidence that P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police
\nwas found at the Nakabandi at a distance of about 2.5 kms.\tfrom
\nthe Village Ranguwal and he  recorded the statement of P.W.3 at
\n11.20 p.m and sent the same to the Police Station through the
\nConstable  and the FIR was drawn up at 11.45 p.m by the Head
\nConstable.  The inquest was held on the dead body on the same
\nnight at about 2 a.m.   In the course of inquest it was found that
\nthere was a bluish mark on the neck apart from the injuries on
\nthe eyebrows and cheeks.  The Pharna wrapped around the neck
\nwas also noticed, but it was not produced before the Court. The
\npost mortem was conducted on 31.1.1994 at 10.30 a.m. by the
\nMedical Officer (P.W.10) attached to S.S.C. Khatran.  He  noticed
\nfive lacerated wounds and two incised wounds on the dead body.
\nThe Medical Officer (P.W.10), who was examined, stated that
\nthere was a bruise-reddish brown in colour on either side of the
\nneck in the front.  The neck was found tilted towards the left side,
\nfaecal  matter was present in the Pyjama, hyoid bone was found
\nfractured and the cartilage was broken.  He stated that the
\ndeceased could have received injuries at about 5 p.m. the
\nprevious day.  He gave the opinion that the death was on account
\nof strangulation.  However, he did not notice any ligature mark or
\nany sort of injury on the back of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
\nthe death by strangulation has not been established by the
\nmedical evidence brought on record.  The absence of ligature
\nmarks and the symptoms associated with the asphyxia has been
\nhighlighted to substantiate his argument.  On this aspect, the
\nHigh Court was of the view that the absence of ligature marks
\nwas not conclusive and the fact that the bruise-reddish brown in
\ncolour, was found on the two sides of the neck together with the
\nevidence of fracture of hyoid bone established the death by
\nstrangulation.  The High Court also commented that the medical
\nwitness was not cross examined challenging his opinion.  We
\nneed not probe into the correctness of the medical opinion as
\nregards the cause of death i.e. whether the death could be by
\nstrangulation as we are of the view that the eye witnesses’
\naccount is not reliable and it is not safe to act on their testimony.
\nP.Ws. 3 and 4, apart from being close relatives of the
\ndeceased, happen to be the chance  witnesses.  It looks  as
\nthough the assailants were all the while waiting for P.Ws. 3 and 4
\nto reach the spot and witness the incident.  Of course, for the
\nmere reason that they are chance witnesses, their evidence
\ncannot be discarded if we find assurance from the prosecution
\nevidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.  We, however, feel
\nthat their evidence should have been more carefully  analysed
\nand evaluated, which the High Court failed to do.
\nRight from the origin of the prosecution story, we find a
\nnumber of irreconcilable versions and contradictions on certain
\nmaterial aspects which throw any amount of doubt on the
\nveracity of the evidence tendered by P.Ws. 3 and 4.  According to
\nthe version of the mother of the deceased (P.W.6), the accused
\npersons took the deceased with them at about 5 p.m.  This fact
\nwas brought to the notice of her husband when he returned home
\nat about 7 p.m.  This is what P.W.3 also says.   P.W.3 stated that
\nhe left for Jorahan Village at about 7.30 p.m. to find his son.  He
\nmet P.W.4 (Ranjit Singh) there and both of them searched,  but
\ncould not find his son.  They  returned to Ranguwal after 9 p.m.
\nWhile on the way, they saw the incident near the Primary School.
\nBut we have the evidence of P.W.5 (Granthi of the Gurudwara of
\nVillage Jorahan) according to whom, he  at the instance of P.W.3
\nmade the announcement over the loud-speaker before sunset
\nabout the missing personGurpreet Singh.  P.W.4 also states
\nthat P.W.3 met him before sunset.  As it was the peak winter
\nmonth of January, the sunset should have been at about 5.30
\np.m. This version of P.Ws. 5 and 4 does not, therefore, fit into the
\nversion of P.Ws. 3 and 6 that they became apprehensive of the
\nsafety of the deceased at about 7 p.m. and thereafter P.W.3 left
\nthe house at 7.30 p.m. in search of his missing son.
\n \tWhy P.W. 3 should weave a story that he came to know
\nthat his son was missing only after he went home at 7.00 p.m. is
\nan unanswered question.   Apparently P.W. 3 did not come
\nforward with a truthful version.  Keeping this background in view,
\nlet us turn to   the evidence of P.W.4  who is the other eye
\nwitness.  P.W. 4 stated in the cross-examination that the sun was
\nsetting when P.W. 3 met him.  According to P.W. 4, the incident
\ntook place  at 7.00 p.m. when they reached Ranguwal village.
\nThus, P.W.3’s evidence and his version in F.I.R. goes directly
\ncontrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 in regard to the time of
\noccurrence and the knowledge about missing of his son. It
\nremains unexplained as to why the prosecution came forward
\nwith an inconsistent and distorted version of the time at which
\nP.W. 3 came to know about his missing son and the actual timing
\nof the occurrence.  The High Court brushed aside the argument
\nregarding the variation  in regard to the time,   observing as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“The witnesses belong to a small village and are not
\neducated.  The mere fact that there is some variation in
\npoint of time when the occurrence took place would not be
\nfatal to the case of the prosecution”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be that some allowance has to be given for the
\nvariation in time but the variation in this case is so vast (7.00
\np.m. to 10.00 p.m.) that it cannot be attributed merely to the
\ninability of the witnesses hailing from the village to give correct
\ntime.  We find that P.W.3 appended his signatures to the
\ndeposition in Hindi and he is described as ‘Lamberdar’  by P.W. 5
\nand P.W. 4 signed in English. So, they are not  illiterate persons,
\nthough living in a village.  It is difficult to assume that they will
\nnot have the idea of time.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe time of incident assumes some importance in the instant
\ncase for the reason that the report was given to the police at
\nabout 11.20 p.m.  If the occurrence had been witnessed at 7.00
\np.m. as per P.W.4’s  version, there would then be a gap of 3 =
\nhrs. to 4 hrs.  Probably to cover up this delay, P.W. 3 has come
\nforward with the story that the incident happened between 9.00
\nand 10.00 p.m.
\n\tAnother important factor  is that  Chowkidar Nahar Singh
\nand P.W.3’s servant Pritam Singh who gathered on the spot
\nallegedly after the incident and were put on guard of the dead
\nbody were not examined. Though  one of them was cited as
\nwitness, he was given up by the public prosecutor as being
\nunnecessary.  The evidence of the persons who gathered
\nimmediately after the occurrence  on hearing the alleged cries of
\nP.Ws.3 & 4 would have been valuable piece of evidence to serve
\nas corroboration of the account given by the direct witnesses,
\nespecially when the presence of the alleged eye witnesses at the
\nspot was too much of a coincidence.  No reason is forthcoming for
\nnot examining them. This is another serious lapse which casts a
\ndoubt on the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen we come to the actual account of P.Ws. 3 & 4
\nregarding the incident which they are supposed to have observed
\nwith the aid of moonlight, we have serious doubt whether  P.Ws.
\n3 & 4  could have observed the details of attack in the manner in
\nwhich they narrated.  In view of the alleged threats, they dared
\nnot to go close to the actual spot of assault.  In fact if they were
\nin a position to go  close to the spot, they would have made some
\nendeavor  to resist the attack. That is the natural course of
\nhuman conduct.  Therefore, standing at a respectable distance for
\nfear of being assaulted, it is doubtful whether they were in a
\nposition to observe each and every detail of the alleged
\noccurrence, that too in the moonlight.   As far as P.W. 3 is
\nconcerned, there is any amount of doubt  as regards  his eye
\nsight. While being examined in the Court, he admitted that he
\nhad weak eye sight and could not tell whether any person was
\nsitting near the wall or on his right side.  P.W. 4 stated that P.W.
\n3 got his eye operation done after the incident.  In all probability,
\neye sight problem would have been there even at the time of the
\nincident which was 3 years earlier.  Be that as it may, considering
\nthe situation and other circumstances it is doubtful whether P.Ws.
\n3 & 4 would be in a position to give graphic details of the alleged
\nincident. Their version in this regard  cannot be considered to be
\ncredible.  True,  even in the absence of giving such details, if
\nP.Ws. 3 & 4 had seen the accused attacking the victim and
\nimmediately thereafter found him dead, it would have been
\nsufficient to establish the prosecution case.  We have only
\nadverted to the fact that P.Ws. 3 & 4 would not have been in a
\nposition to observe the details to demonstrate that they were
\nprepared to sacrifice the truth to support the prosecution.
\n\tThe evidence of P.W. 6 is evidently meant to build up the
\n“last seen” evidence.  Her version that at the instance of the two
\naccused the victim left the house is open to serious doubt.  If her
\nversion is truthful, one would expect P.W. 3 contacting the two
\naccused or their leader.   It was nobody’s case that P.W 3 went to
\nthe  houses  of  those  persons  and tried to make inquiries.   It is
\nseen from the deposition of P.W. 6 that her statement was
\nrecorded on 6.4.1994 i.e. about three months later, for
\nwhich no explanation is forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that the
\nTrial Court and the High Court did not consider certain
\nmaterial aspects apparent from the evidence and there was
\nalmost a mechanical acceptance of the evidence of the two
\nchance witnesses whose evidence should have been
\nevaluated with greater care and caution. As pointed out by
\nthis Court in Satbir Vs. Surat Singh & Anr. [1997 (4)
\nSCC 192], a “cautious and close scrutiny” of the evidence of
\nchance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court.
\nIn these circumstances, this Court need not feel bound to
\naccept the findings. The overall picture we get on a critical
\nexamination of the prosecution evidence is that PWs 3 & 4
\nwere introduced as eye-witnesses only after the dead body
\nwas found.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and
\nsentence against the appellant is set aside.  The appellant is
\ndirected to be released forthwith.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 Author: P Reddi Bench: P.Venkatarama Reddi, B.P. Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 916 of 2003 PETITIONER: Harjinder Singh @ Bhola RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/07\/2004 BENCH: P.VENKATARAMA REDDI & B.P. SINGH. JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-161380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHarjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - 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\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2406,\"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\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\",\"name\":\"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - 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\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004"},"wordCount":2406,"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\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004","name":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T06:33:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjinder-singh-bhola-vs-state-of-punjab-on-27-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harjinder Singh @ Bhola vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161380","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=161380"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161380\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}