{"id":167844,"date":"2004-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004"},"modified":"2017-07-17T20:44:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T15:14:00","slug":"khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: B.P.Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  998 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nKHUMAN SINGH & ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF M.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nB.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T \t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
B.P.SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere are seven appellants in this Appeal who have impugned the
\njudgement and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated
\n2nd September, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No.1035 of 1989. The High Court
\nby its impugned judgement and order dismissed the appeal preferred by them
\nand upheld the judgement and order of the First Additional Sessions Judge,
\nSehore in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1988 finding them guilty of the offence
\npunishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…2\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-2-<\/span><\/p>\n
sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The appellants were also found
\nguilty of the offences under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC
\nand sentenced to undergo one year, and six months, rigorous imprisonment
\nrespectively for those offences.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of the case  are that in connection with the Flag Ceremony
\nperformed near the Hanuman Temple, the villagers had assembled from
\ndifferent villages. They danced the whole night in celebration. The party of
\nthe complainant was dancing to the beating of drums of one Nanla (PW 5)
\nwhile the appellants and others were dancing in a separate group. It appears
\nthat inadvertently the stick of Khuman Singh, Appellant No.2 hit PW5 on his
\nface. There was protest from Nanla, and it appears that an altercation
\nfollowed the protest. However, the groups dispersed thereafter. Rayla (since
\ndeceased) had intervened to pacify the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…3\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Thereafter the villagers took ‘prasad’ and started to proceed towards their
\nrespective villages. According to the prosecution, the complainant party was
\nchased by the appellants who caught hold of Nanla (PW 5). There was protest
\nfrom deceased Rayla and others. It appears that appellant No.1 gave a lathi
\nblow to Bair Singh (PW 1). The chase continued and ultimately in the field of
\nSamadh Miyan, Rayla, the deceased was over-powered and was assaulted
\nwith lathi and stones. It is the case of the prosecution that some of the accused
\ntrampled on his body as a result of which he died on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe First Information Report was lodged by PW1 and after
\ninvestigation the appellants were put on trial. There is considerable evidence
\non record to prove the participation of the appellants. The evidence also
\nestablishes the genesis and manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…4\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tLearned Counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the
\nprosecution case is accepted to be true, the nature of injuries caused, the
\nweapons used, the genesis of the occurrence and the trivial dispute which
\ngave rise to the occurrence, belie the case of the prosecution that the
\nappellants intended to cause the death of the deceased. She submits that none
\nof the injuries caused was by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\nto cause death, and at best death resulted on account of the unintended injury
\nto the liver caused by fracture of a rib bone which punctured the liver.
\nAccording to her, injury to the liver, which appears to be the cause of the
\ndeath, was not intended by the appellants. According to her, the offence made
\nout may be one under Section 326 or Section 324 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the other hand, Counsel for the State submitted that a large
\nnumber of injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the appellants. The
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…5\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-6-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants must have known that such large number of injuries caused by
\nthem would result in the death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature.
\nHe, therefore, submitted that the case clearly comes under Section 302 IPC.
\nTo be more precise he submits that the case would fall under Section 300
\n“thirdly” IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have gone through the evidence on record and have noticed the
\nfeatures of the case. Firstly, the occurrence has its genesis in a trivial  matter
\nnamely the unintended hitting of Nanla (PW5) by the stick of appellant No.2
\nwhen they were dancing at the festival. There was some protest giving rise to
\nexchange of abuses and altercation but the matter rested there. Thereafter, the
\nparties took ‘prasad’ and proceeded to their respective villages. It is thus
\napparent that what happened was not premeditated and the appellants had not
\ncome particularly prepared for the incident. Secondly,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…6\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-6-<\/span><\/p>\n
while returning to their respective villages the appellants caught hold of Nanla
\n(PW5) but there was intervention by the deceased Rayla. This is what made
\nRayla the target of the appellants. The injuries inflicted were by lathis carried
\nby the appellants and some of them picked up stones which they found lying
\nnearby. Thirdly, the medical evidence discloses that the following injuries
\nwere caused :-<\/p>\n
\t1.\tSwelling of the size of 3 cm. x 3 cm. \t\ton
\nthe outer margin of the eye and \t\t\tright side of
\nthe face.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tSwelling of the dia of 4 cm. on the
\n\thead bone of left parietal bone.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tA spreading swelling over the left of
\n\tthe nostril and on the Mazalary bone \t\tof the left
\nface.\n<\/p>\n
\t 4.\tSpreading swelling in the region of
\n\tthe left collar bone.\n<\/p>\n
\t 5.\tIn the half upper portion of the left
\n\tarm  spreading swelling.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…7\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
\t 6.\tContusion spread around the niple of
\n\tleft side of the chest.\n<\/p>\n
\t 7.\tSwelling in the region of the ribs
\n\tNos.10, 11, 12 of the back bone and
\n\tright side of the back.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe internal examination disclosed that though there was clotting of
\nblood under the upper skin on the left parietal bone there was no underlying
\nfracture. The 11th and 12th ribs which had been fractured had entered the
\nliver. The deceased had suffered several fracture of bones but none of them
\nappear to be such as would have caused his death in the ordinary course of
\nnature.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination was
\nexamined as PW10 but in the course of his deposition he did not state that he
\nhad found any injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
\ncause death. His opinion appears
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…8\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-8-<\/span><\/p>\n
to be that “death has been caused due to the  injuries caused on his person and
\nfollowing the damage of the liver and profuse bleeding”. In the absence of
\nany clear medical opinion we have examined the nature of injuries inflicted
\non the deceased as disclosed by the evidence on record. From the external and
\ninternal injuries found, we have come to the conclusion that  it was the injury
\ncaused to the liver resulting in profuse bleeding which caused the death. If the
\nliver had not been damaged, perhaps death would not have resulted. We say
\nso because there is no clear medical opinion on this aspect. The question then
\nis whether in this state of the evidence on record, the case is covered by
\nSection 300  “thirdly” IPC, that is to say, whether the appellants committed
\nthe act with the intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased and the
\nbodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of
\nnature to cause death. In Virsa Singh Versus State of Punjab, AIR
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…9\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
1958 SC 465, this Court considered the facts and held that the prosecution
\nmust prove the following facts before it could bring the case under Section
\n300 “thirdly”.\n<\/p>\n
\t“First, it must establish, quite objectively that a bodily injury is
\npresent;\n<\/p>\n
\tSecondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely
\nobjective investigations.\n<\/p>\n
\tThirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
\nparticular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or
\nunintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
\n\tOnce these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry
\nproceeds further and,
\n\tFourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
\nmade up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the
\nordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and
\ninferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.”\n<\/p>\n
  \t\t\t\t\t\t…10\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tIn Anda Versus State of Rajasthan (AIR 1966 SC 151 the same
\nprinciple has been reiterated in the following words :-
\n\t“The third clause views the matter from a general stand point. It
\nspeaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the
\nordinary course of nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high
\nprobability of death in the ordinary way of nature and when this exists and
\ndeath ensues and the causing of such injury is intended the offence is murder.
\nSometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on
\nwhich the injury is caused, and sometimes both are relevant. The determinant
\nfactor is the intentional injury which must be sufficient to cause death in the
\nordinary course of nature. If the intended injury cannot be said to be sufficient
\nin the ordinary course of nature to cause death, that is to say, the probability
\nof death is not so high, the offence does not fall within murder but within
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…11\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
culpable homicide not amounting to murder or something less.”\n<\/p>\n
In the same judgement this Court cautioned that no case can be an authority
\non facts. This is always a question of fact as to whether accused shared a
\nparticular knowledge or intent. One must look for a common intention, that is
\nto say, some prior concert and what that common intention is. One must look
\nfor the requisite ingredient that the injuries which were intended to be caused
\nwere sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and whether
\nthe accused possessed the knowledge that the injuries they were intending to
\ncause were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
\tKeeping these principles in mind and applying them to the facts of
\nthis case we find that the occurrence took place suddenly. There was no
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…12\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
premeditation on the part of the appellants and quarrel really arose from a
\ntrivial issue. The parties had danced all night and nothing untoward had
\nhappened except this small incident. Thereafter they proceeded towards their
\nrespective villages. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants
\nwere armed with deadly weapons. Some of them were carrying lathis, as are
\nusually carried by the tribals in that part of the State, and had not made any
\nspecial preparation for the assault. Some others had just picked up stones
\nwhen the deceased was overpowered, and assaulted him. It is, no doubt, true
\nthat they assaulted the deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered
\nseveral fractures, but the injury which caused the death of the deceased was
\nthe one suffered by him on account of the rib bone puncturing the liver. We
\nare convinced that this injury was not intended by the appellants, and the
\ninjury suffered by the deceased on his liver was at best accidental. We
\ntherefore, hold that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…13\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 300 “thirdly” IPC is not attracted, and it cannot be said that the
\nappellants intended to cause any injury to the liver which perhaps proved
\nfatal. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the other injuries suffered by
\nhim was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question then is under which provision of the IPC the appellants
\nshould be punished. Counsel for the State submits that even if the case does
\nnot fall under Section 300 “thirdly” IPC it would certainly fall under Section
\n304 Part II IPC. Even if we say that the appellants had no intention to cause
\ndeath they certainly knew that such bodily injury was likely to cause death.
\nHe, therefore, submits that even if the appellants may not be found guilty of
\nculpable homicide amounting to murder, they are certainly guilty of culpable
\nhomicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…14\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
\tHaving considered all the relevant facts we are satisfied that the
\nappellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
\nWe, therefore, set aside their conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead
\nconvict them under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence them to 5 years
\nrigorous imprisonment. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
\noffence will fall under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 304 Part II IPC
\nbecause the injury caused by the appellants resulted in fracture of the bones. It
\nis true that in such border line cases it is possible to hold either way.
\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of this case the conviction should
\nappropriately be one under Section 304 Part II IPC. In any event, it would
\nmake no difference to the sentence, having regard to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction
\nof the appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside and they are convicted
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…15\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
 under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous
\nimprisonment each. We are informed that the appellant No.1, Khuman Singh,
\ns\/o Nahar Singh, appellant No.2 Khuman Singh, s\/o Bair Singh, Appellant
\nNo.4 Bhai Singh, s\/o Phool Singh and Appellant No.6 Dhanna, s\/o Par Singh
\nhave remained in custody through out and have served out about 11 years of
\nthe sentence, while the remaining appellants were granted bail by the High
\nCourt after sometime. In this appeal this Court granted bail to all the
\nappellants. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the authorities are directed to
\ntake them into custody if they have not served out the sentence of five years
\nawarded by this Court, to serve out the remainder of the sentence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004 Author: B.P.Singh Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 998 of 1999 PETITIONER: KHUMAN SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/2004 BENCH: B.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N […]<\/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-167844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKhuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 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\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-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=\"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T15:14:00+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\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T15:14:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2296,\"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\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T15:14:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 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\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T15:14:00+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\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T15:14:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004"},"wordCount":2296,"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\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004","name":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T15:14:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khuman-singh-ors-vs-state-of-m-p-on-24-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khuman Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 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:\/\/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\/167844","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=167844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}