{"id":171349,"date":"1988-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988"},"modified":"2016-07-10T21:52:32","modified_gmt":"2016-07-10T16:22:32","slug":"hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2127, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 571<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHARI KISHAN & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 2127\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 571\n 1988 SCC  (4) 551\t  JT 1988 (3)\t711\n 1988 SCALE  (2)426\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal Procedure Code,  1973: Section 357-order to pay\ncompensation-All Courts to exercise this power liberally  to\nmeet  ends of justice-Reasonable period for payment  may  be\ngiven-If necessary payment by installments.\n   Probation  of  Offenders Act, 1958:\tMany  offenders-Not\ndangerous criminals- Weak characters who have surrendered to\ntemptation  or provocation-Court placing such  offenders  on\nprobation-Protects  them  from\tpossible  contamination\t  by\nprison.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Seven  persons  were convicted under  sections  307\/149,\n325\/l49, 3231\/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo\tR.Z.\nfrom  one year to three years. The High Court acquitted\t two\nof  all\t charges, and five of the offence under\t s.  307\/149\nwhile  maintaining  their conviction and sentence  under  s.\n325\/149,  s. 323\/149 and s. 148. They were however  released\non  probation of good conduct. Each one of them was  ordered\nto  pay\t compensation  of  Rs. 2,500  to  Joginder  who\t was\nseriously injured and whose power of speech was\t permanently\nimpaired.\n    Before  this  Court\t the appellant\tcontended  that\t the\nintention of the five accused was obviously to commit murder\nof  Joginder  and  their  acquittal under  s.  3O7  IPC\t was\nperverse.\n    Disposing of the appeal, it was,\n    HELD: (1) Under s. 307 IPC what the Court has to see  is\nwhether\t the act irrespective of its result, was  done\twith\nthe intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned\nin that section. The intention or knowledge must be such  as\nis  necessary to constitute murder. Without this  ingredient\nbeing  established  there can be no  offence  of\"attempt  to\nmurder\".  Under\t s.  307  the  intention  precedes  the\t act\nattributed  to accused.\t Therefore, the intention is  to  be\ngathered  from\tall circumstances, and not merely  from\t the\nconsequences  that ensue. In this case, the respondents\t had\nno  intention to commit murder. They had no  motive  either.\n[575F-G]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 571\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 572\n    (2)\t Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but\t are\nweak  characters  or who have surrendered to  temptation  or\nprovocation. In placing such type of offenders on  probation\nthe  Court encourages their own sense of responsibility\t for\ntheir future and protects them from the\t stigma and possible\ncontamination of prison. [576C-D]\n    (3) In this case, the High Court has observed that there\nwas  no previous history of enmity between the\tparties\t and\nthe  occurrence\t was an outcome of a sudden  flare  up.\t The\naccused\t had  no intention to commit murder of\tany  person.\nTherefore,  the\t extension  of\tbenefit\t of  the  beneficial\nlegislation applicable to first offenders cannot be said  to\nbe inappropriate. l576D-E]\n    (4) Section 357 empowers the Court to award compensation\nto  victims while passing judgment of conviction. This power\nof Courts to award compensation to victims is not  ancillary\nto other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power\nis  intended to do something to reassure the victim that  he\nor  she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system.  It\nis  recommended\t to  all  Courts  to  exercise\tthis   power\nliberally   so\tas to meet the ends of justice in  a  better\nway. [577F-H]\n    (5)\t  The  payment\tby  way\t of  compensation  must\t  be\nreasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and\ncircumstances  of each case, e.g. the nature of\t crime,\t the\njustness  of  claim  by the victim and the  ability  of\t the\naccused\t to  pay  etc. On  these  considerations  the  Court\nenhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000. [578A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  74
\n& 75 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated\t 13.11.1984  of\t the
\nPunjab\tand Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 128-SP  of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
    R.L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and D.D. Sharma for the Appellant
\nin Crl. A. No. 74 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
    D.S. Tewatia and Mahabir Singh for the appellant in Crl.
\nA. No. 75 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
    U.R.   Lalit,  R.S.\t Yadav\tand  H.M.  Singh   for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 573
\n    JAGANNATH  SHETTY,\tJ.  These two  appeals,\t by  special
\nleave, are directed against a judgment of the High Court  of
\nPunjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 128-SP of 1984.\t The
\ncommon\trespondents  in\t the appeals.  were  prosecuted\t for
\nvarious offenses in the court of Additional Sessions  judge,
\nFaridkot.  By judgment dated February 28,1984 learned  Judge
\nconvicted and sentenced the accused as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “Keeping  in view the circumstances of the case and\t the
\npart  played  by each of them I,  hereby  sentence  Sukhbir,
\nSukhpal\t and  Surat Singh accused to undergo R.I.  for\tfour
\nyears  u\/s 307\/149 IPC. Each of Om Pal, Dhan Pal, Mannu\t and
\nSiri  Chand are ordered to undergo R.I. for three year.\t u\/s
\n307\/149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    Each of the seven accused are further ordered to undergo
\nR.I.  for one year 148 IPC, two years R.I. u\/s 325  149\t IPC
\nand one year R. I. s\/u 323\/149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    Keeping  in view the circumstances of the case. all\t the
\nsentences shall run concurrently. ”
\n    The\t accused appealed t the High Court  challenging\t the
\nconviction  and\t sentence. The High Court  by  the  judgment
\nunder  appeals acquitted  Sukhpal Singh and Surat  singh  of
\nall  charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The  other
\naccused who are respondents herein are also acquitted of the
\noffence\t under s. 307\/149 and s. 148 IPC.  There  conviction
\nand  sentence under s. 325\/149, 323\/149 and s. 148  IPC\t are
\nhowever. maintained. They are released on probation of\tgood
\nconduct. Each one of them, is ordered to pay compensation of
\nRs.  2,500  to\tJoginder who was seriously  injured  in\t the
\nincident.  In  default\tto pay\tthe  compensation  they\t are
\ndirected  to serve their sentence. The operative portion  of
\nthe judgment runs like this:\n<\/p>\n
     “There  is\t no previous history of\t enmity\t between  to
\nparties. The occurrence is the outcome of a sudden flare up.
\nI think, these five appellants namely Sukhbir Singh Dhanpal,
\nMannu,\tSiri  Chand and Om Pal are  entitled  their  benefit
\nunder s. 360 Cr. P.C. Consequently, I suspend their sentence
\nunder s. 325\/149, 323\/149 and s. 148 IPC and order that\t the
\nappellants namely Sukhbir Singh, Dhan Pal Mannu. Siri  Chand
\nand Om Pal be released on probation  on their entering\tinto
\nbonds  of Rs.3,000 each with one surety in the\tlike  amount
\nfor a period of one year, to the  satisfaction of the  trial
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 574
\ncourt,\tundertaking  to appear in the court to\treceive\t the
\nsentence during the said period\t whenever called upon to  do
\nso  and\t in  the  meantime to keep  peace  and\tbe  of\tgood
\nbehavior.  However,  each one of the   appellant  would\t pay
\nRs.2,500  as  compensation  payable  to\t Joginder   injured.
\nCompensation  if not paid within two months, the  appellants
\nnamely Sukhbir Singh, Dhanpal. Mannu, Siri Chand and Om\t Pal
\nwould be called upon to\t serve their sentence. But for\tthis
\nmodification, appeal fails  and is hereby dismissed.
\n    In\tview of s. 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act,  no
\ndisqualification would attach to the appellants due to this
\nconviction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t Sd\/-K.P.S.Sandhu
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge”\n<\/p>\n
    Dt. November 13, l984
\n    In\tthese  appeals,\t there is no  serious  dispute\twith
\nregard\tto acquittal of Sukhpal Singh and Surat\t Singh.\t The
\nprosecution  case that they were armed with Barchha has\t not
\nbeen  proved. There was no incised injury on the  victim  or
\nany of the prosecution witnesses. Their participation in the
\ncommission  of crime therefore appears to be  doubtful.\t The
\nHigh Court was justified in acquitting them.
\n    Counsel  for the appellants are, however, vary  critical
\nof  the\t order of High Court with regard  to  the  remaining
\naccused.  It  is  urged that the High  Court  was  too\tmuch
\ncharitable to, them. The intention of accused was  obviously
\nto  commit murder of joginder. Their acquittal under s.\t 307
\nIPC  is characterised as perverse. At any rate, it  is\tsaid
\nthat  they  ought not have been put on probation. It  is  an
\nabuse  of  the\tprocess\t of Court.  They  should  have\tbeen
\nproperly  sentenced by term of imprisonment and fine. It  is
\nalso urged that Joginder has sustained permanent  disability
\ndue  to head injury and no amount of compensation  would  be
\nadequate for him except severe punishment to the accused  as
\na  general deterrence. Counsel for the accused on the  other
\nhand, seeks to support the order of the High Court in  every
\nrespect.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe light of the submissions, three questions  arise
\nconsideration (i) whether the respondents are not guilty  of
\nthe  offence  under s. 307\/149 IPC; (ii)  whether  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  justified  in extending the benefit\t of  s.\t 360
\nCr.P.C.\t and  releasing\t the accused on\t probation  of\tgood
\nconduct;  and  (iii)  whether the  compensation\t awarded  to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 575
\nJoginder could be legally sustained, and if so, what  should
\nbe the proper compensation ?\n<\/p>\n
    For\t a proper consideration of these questions,  we\t may
\nsummarise briefly the factual background: The rival  parties
\nin this case are collaterals. On September 28, 1982 at about
\n8\/9 a.m. they had an altercation near the tubewell belonging
\nto Hari Kishan. Joginder is the son of Hari Kishan. Virender
\nanother injured in this case is nephew of Hari Kishan.\tHari
\nKishan was sitting near his tubewell. Virender and  Joginder
\nwere sowing Berseem crop. The accused carne from the side of
\nthe  tubewell. They were armed with Ballams and Dangas.\t One
\nof  them  raised  a Lalkara at which  the  accused  attacked
\nVirender  and Joginder. In the brawl that followed  some  of
\nthe  accused were also injured. The injured were removed  to
\nCivil  Hospital,  Ballabgarh.  The  Medical  Officer   there
\nreferred  them to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.  Finally.,
\nthey  landed themselves at the AIIMS, New Delhi.  They\twere
\nexamined  by  the Doctors. Virender was found  to  have\t two
\ninjuries caused by blunt weapons. Joginder was found to have
\nhead  injury. Amongst the accused Siri Chand, Dhan  Pal,  Om
\nPal  and  Sukhbir Singh were injured.  They  were  medically
\nexamined  in AIIMS or Safdarjung Hospital, New\tDelhi.\tSiri
\nChand had four injuries including a fracture caused by blunt
\nweapon.\t that has been proved by Dr. Rita Sood\t(DW1).\tDhan
\nPal and Om Pal each had four injuries but simple. They\twere
\nalso,  caused by blunt weapons. Dr. V.K. Dhingra (DW 2)\t has
\nspoken\tto that. Sukhbir singh had one incised wound on\t his
\nperson. Dr.Anurag Saxena (DW 3) has testified.
\n    On\tthe  first question as to acquittal of\tthe  accused
\nunder  s.3O7\/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be  borne
\nin  mind.  Under  s.307 IPC what the Court has\tto  see\t is,
\nwhether\t the act irrespective of its result, was  done\twith
\nthe intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned
\nin  that section. The intention or knowledge or the  accused
\nmust  be  such as is necessary constitute’  murder.  Without
\nthis  ingredient being established, there can be no  offence
\nof “attempt to murder”. Under s. 307 the intention  precedes
\nthe  act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention  is
\nto  be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely\tfrom
\nthe consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon  used,
\nmanner in which it is used. motive for the crime,severity of
\nthe blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted
\nare some of the factors that may be taken into consideration
\nit,determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the
\ncourse\tof  a fight inflicted on each  other  injuries\tboth
\nserious\t and  minor. The accused though\t armed\twith  ballam
\nnever used the sharp edge of it.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 576
\n    They  used only the blunt side of it despite they  being
\nattacked  by the other side. They suffered injuries but\t not
\nprovoked  or tempted to use the cutting edge of the  weapon.
\nIt is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no
\nintention  to commit murder. They had no motive either.\t The
\nfight  as  the High Court has observed, might  have  been  a
\nsudden\tflare up. Where the fight is accidental owing  to  a
\nsudden quarrel, the conviction under s. 307 is generally not
\ncalled\tfor.  We, therefore, see no reason  to\tdisturb\t the
\nacquittal of accused under s. 307 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question  next\t to be\tconsidered  is\twhether\t the
\naccused\t are  entitled to the benefit of probation  of\tgood
\nconduct\t  ?  We\t gave  our  anxious  consideration  to\t the
\ncontentions  urged  by counsel. We are of opinion  that\t the
\nHigh Court has not committed any error in this regard  also.
\nMany  offenders\t are not dangerous criminals  but  are\tweak
\ncharacters   or\t who  have  surrendered\t to  temptation\t  or
\nprovocation.   In  placing  such  type\tof   offenders,\t  on
\nprobation,   the  Court\t encourages  their  own\t  sense\t  of
\nresponsibility\tfor their future and protect them  from\t the
\nstigma\tand possible contamination of prison. In this  case.
\nthe  High  Court  has observed that there  was\tno  previous
\nhistory of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was
\nan  outcome of a sudden flare up. These are not shown to  be
\nincorrect.  We\thave already said that the  accused  had  no
\nintention  to  commit murder of\t any  person.  Therefore,the
\nextension   of\t benefit  of  the   beneficial\t legislation
\napplicable   to\t first\toffenders  cannot  be  said  to\t  be
\ninappropriate.\n<\/p>\n
    This  takes\t us to, the third questions  which  we\thave
\nformulated  earlier  in this judgments. The High  Court\t has
\ndirected  each\tof  the\t respondents to\t pay  Rs.  2,500  as
\ncompensation to Joginder. The High Court has not referred to
\nany   provision\t  of  law  in  support\tof  the\t  order\t  of
\ncompensation.  But  that can be traced to s.  357  Cr.\tP.C.
\nSection 357, leaving aside the unnecessary, provides :
\n   “357. Order to pay compensation :\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t When  a  court\t imposes a sentence  of\t fine  or  a
\nsentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms
\na part,the Court may. when passing judgment. order the whole
\nor any part of the fine recovered to be applied-\n<\/p>\n
    (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in\t the
\nprosecution;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 577\n<\/p>\n
    (b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any
\nloss  or injury caused by the offence. when compensation  is
\nin the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a
\ncivil Court;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      XXXXX XXXXX XXXX
\n\t\t\tXXXXX XXXXX
\n\t\t\t   XXXXX
\n    (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine\tdoes
\nnot  not form a part, the Court may, when passing  judgment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
order  the  accused person to pay, by way  of  compensation.
\nsuch  amount as may be specified in the order to the  person
\nwho has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for
\nwhich the accused person has been so sentenced.
\n    (4)\t An order under this section may also be made by  an
\nAppellate  Court  or by the High Court or Court\t of  Session
\nwhen exercising its power of revision.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t At  the  time\tof  awarding  compensation  in\t any
\nsubsequent   civil  suit relating to the  same\tmatter.\t the
\nCourt  shall take into account any sum paid or recovered  as
\ncompensation under this section.”\n<\/p>\n
    Sub-section\t (1) of Section 357 provides power to  award
\ncompensation  to victims of the offence out of the  sentence
\nof  fine  imposed  on  accused. In this\t case.\twe  are\t not
\nconcerned  with sub-section (1). We are concerned only\twith
\nsub-section  (3).  It is an important provision\t but  Courts
\nhave  seldom  invoked it. Perhaps due to  ignorance  of\t the
\nobject of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to
\nvictims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to
\nconviction,  the  Court may order the accused  to  pay\tsome
\namount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered  by
\nthe  action of accused. It may be noted that this  power  of
\nCourts\tto  award  compensation is not\tancillary  to  other
\nsentences  but\tit is in addition thereto.  This  power\t was
\nintended to do something to re-assure the victim that he  or
\nshe is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a
\nmeasure\t of  responding appropriately to crime\tas  well  of
\nreconciling  the  victim with the offender. It is,  to\tsome
\nextent.\t a constructive approach to, crimes. It is indeed  a
\nstep   forward\t in  our  criminal   justice   system.\t We,
\ntherefore,recommend  to\t all Courts to exercise\t this  power
\nliberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 578
\n    The\t payment  by way of compensation must,\thowever,  be
\nreasonable What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation\t may
\nbe  determined by taking into account the nature  of  crime,
\nthe  justness  of claim by the\tvictim and  the\t ability  of
\naccused to pay. If there are more than one accused they\t may
\nbe asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to\t pay
\nvaries\tconsiderably.  The payment may also  vary  depending
\nupon   the  acts  of each  accused.  Reasonable\t period\t for
\npayment\t of compensation, if necessary by installments,\t may
\nalso  be given. The Court may enforce the order by  imposing
\nsentence in default.\n<\/p>\n
    Joginder  in  this case is an  unfortunate\tvictim.\t His
\npower  of speech has been permanently impaired.\t Doctor\t has
\ncertified that he is unable to speak and that is why he\t has
\nnot  stepped into the witness box for the  prosecution.\t The
\nlife  long  disability of the victim ought not\tto  be\tbye-
\npassed by the Court. He must be made to feel that the  Court
\nand  accused have taken care of him. Any such measure  which
\nwould  give  him  succor is far better than  a\tsentence  by
\ndeterrence.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t compensation  awarded\tby the High  Court,  in\t our
\nopinion,  appears  to  be inadequate having  regard  to\t the
\nnature of injury suffered  by Joginder. We have\t ascertained
\nthe  means of accused and their\t ability to pay further\t sum
\nto  the victim. We are told that they are not  unwilling  to
\nbear  the additional burden. Mr. Lalit learned counsel\tsaid
\nthat his clients are willing to pay any amount determined by
\nthis  Court.  It  is indeed a good gesture on  the  part  of
\ncounsel and his clients.\n<\/p>\n
    With  due regard to all the facts and  circumstances  of
\nthe  case,  we\t consider that\tRs.50,000   compensation  to
\nJoginder  would\t meet  the ends of justice.  We\t direct\t the
\nrespondents  to pay the balance within two months  in  equal
\nproportions.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t order\tof the High Court is modified  only  to\t the
\nextent\tof Compensation as indicated above and in all  other
\nrespects it is kept undisturbed. The appeals are accordingly
\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n
      R.S.S.\t\t\t      Appeals disposed of.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 2127, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 571 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: HARI KISHAN & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/08\/1988 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. […]<\/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-171349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - 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\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-10T16:22:32+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-10T16:22:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2463,\"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\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\",\"name\":\"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-10T16:22:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - 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\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-10T16:22:32+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-10T16:22:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988"},"wordCount":2463,"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\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988","name":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-10T16:22:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hari-kishan-anr-vs-sukhbir-singh-ors-on-25-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988"}]},{"@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\/171349","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=171349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}