{"id":172793,"date":"2006-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006"},"modified":"2015-11-29T07:15:23","modified_gmt":"2015-11-29T01:45:23","slug":"mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: P Naolekar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  830 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nMOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/03\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused-appellants belong to Sakkanwali Village,
\nPolice Station Sadar Muktsar, District Muktsar, Punjab.  The
\ndeceased Harbans Singh was the neighbour of the
\nappellants.  There was a dispute on the demarcation of the
\nShamlat land.  Some portion of this land is claimed by the
\naccused-appellants and some of the land was being claimed
\nby Harbans Singh, the deceased.  The Shamlat land has not
\nbeen demarcated nor a particular portion of the land was in
\nexclusive possession of either the appellants or the
\ncomplainant party.  As per the First Information Report
\nlodged by Harvinder Kaur at 10.30 P.M. on 23rd February,
\n1996, the prosecution story unfolded is, that on 23rd
\nFebruary 1996 at about 5.30 P.M., the complainant
\nHarvinder Kaur (PW-1) along with Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2),
\nwife of Jaspal Singh, were making cow-dung cakes in the
\nShalmat land.  Harbans Singh after providing fodder to the
\ncattle was talking to Jaspal Singh.  In the meantime,
\nMohinder Singh (A-1) and Nasib Singh (A-3), armed with
\nlicensed 12 bore double barrel guns, Naginder Singh (A-6)
\narmed with dang, Sukhdev Singh (A-5) armed with kassia,
\nBeant  Singh (A-2)  armed  with  kirpan and Nirbhai Singh
\n(A-4) armed with kassruli came to the spot.  Mohinder Singh
\n(A-1) raised lalkara that the complainant party be taught a
\nlesson for grabbing and making addition of the land of the
\naccused with that of the land of the complainant party.
\nThen Mohinder Singh fired shot from his licensed gun at
\nHarbans Singh, which hit him on the left side of the chest.
\nWhen the complainant (PW-1) ran towards her husband to
\nsave him, Nasib Singh (A-3) fired a shot from his double
\nbarrel 12 bore gun, which hit her on the ankle of left foot.
\nAt that time Mohinder Singh fired another shot, which hit on
\nthe interior side of the right thigh of Harbans Singh, the
\ndeceased.  At the same time Naginder Singh (A-6) gave
\ndang blows to Jaspal Singh and Nasib Singh again fired shot
\non the right leg of Jasvinder Kaur.  An alarm was raised
\nwhich attracted Gurbans Singh and Mander Singh sons of
\nGurdev Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurmit Singh sons of Bhag
\nSingh, Madan Singh son of Avtar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh
\nson of Mehar Singh, residents of Sakkanwali Village.  When
\nthey tried to intervene and rescue the members of the
\ncomplainant party, Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh fired
\nshots at them hitting the right flank of Madan Singh and left
\nleg of Pritam Singh.  Similarly, Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh
\nand Nirbhai Singh caused injuries to Mander Singh, Gurbans
\nSingh, Mukhtiar Singh and Gurmit Singh.  After causing the
\naforesaid injuries, all the accused ran away with their
\nrespective weapons.  Thereafter, Gurmit Singh arranged for
\nthe vehicle and took the injured to the Civil Hospital,
\nMuktsar.  However, Harbans Singh succumbed to his injuries
\non his way to the hospital.  The remaining injured were got
\nadmitted to the Civil Hospital at Muktsar.
\n\tThe inquest report of the dead body of Harbans Singh
\nwas prepared in the presence of Jaspal Singh and Mander
\nSingh.  The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at
\n5.00 A.M. on 24th February, 1996.  After the investigation
\nthe accused persons were arrested and prosecuted.
\n\tAppellants Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and
\nNaginder Singh had taken the plea of alibi stating that on
\nthe date of occurrence they along with Bachittar Singh and
\nHarmanjit Singh had gone to the village Jharriwala to see a
\nmatch for the grand daughter of Naginder Singh and had
\nreturned late in the night.  As such they were not present on
\nthe date at the place of occurrence and had been falsely
\nimplicated by the complainant side.  The other appellants
\nwhile admitting the incident asserted that Harvinder Kaur
\nhad given wrong version of the facts, in fact, Nasib Singh
\nwas present at his house.  Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh
\ncame to know that Harbans Singh (deceased), Jaspal Singh
\n(PW-9), Gurdev Singh, Mander Singh armed with gandasas
\nalong with some other persons were placing cow-dung cakes
\nin their plot\/land to take forceful possession of the land and
\nwhen Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh went to the spot to
\nmake enquiries, the aforesaid persons attacked them and
\ncaused injuries.  Nasib Singh, Gurmail Singh and Angrez
\nSingh intervened to save Nirbhai Singh and Beant Singh.
\nGurmail Singh and Angrez Singh caused injuries to the
\ncomplainant’s side.  It was further asserted that in the
\nmeanwhile, some other persons collected there and Nasib
\nSingh in self-defence of his property and person fired shots
\nwhich hit the complainant’s side.
\nThe prosecution has mainly based its case on the eye
\nwitnesses’ account of the incident deposed by Harvinder
\nKaur (PW-1), Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2), Jaspal Singh (PW-9)
\nand Pritam Singh (PW-10), the injured witnesses.  The post-
\nmortem of the deceased Harbans Singh was conducted by
\nDr. Kirandeep (PW-4) and she had found fire-arm injuries on
\nthe person of the deceased.  In her opinion, the cause of
\ndeath was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to
\npericardium and heart, which was sufficient to cause death
\nin the ordinary course of nature.  Dr. M.G. Sharma (PW-3)
\nhad examined Mukhtiar Singh and Jaspal Singh.  On 23rd
\nFebruary, 1996, Dr. Tarlochan Singh (PW-15) examined
\nHarvinder Kaur (PW-1), Gurmit Singh, Pritam Singh,
\nJasvinder Kaur (PW-2) and Mander Singh.  The doctors
\nfound the injuries on the person of the persons examined by
\nthem.  Nirbhai Singh (A-4) and Beant Singh (A-2) were also
\nexamined by Dr. APS Kochar (DW-1) who had found some
\ninjuries on the person of  A-4 and A-2.  At the instance of
\nthe accused Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh, licensed guns
\nwere recovered from their possession.  After appreciation of
\nthe evidence on record, the trial court convicted all the
\naccused persons as under:\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n148 of
\nthe
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one
\nyear, each.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n302 of
\nthe
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for life and to pay
\na fine of Rs. 10,000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to
\nfurther undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one
\nyear for committing the murder
\nof Harbans Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n302 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for life and to pay
\na fine of Rs. 10,000\/- each and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to
\nfurther undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one
\nyear each for committing the
\nmurder of Harbans Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n307 <\/span>
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of
\nseven years and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 2000\/- each, and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor six months each, for
\nattempting to murder Harvinder
\nKaur, Jasvinder Kaur, Modan
\nSingh & Pritam Singh by causing
\ngun shot injuries.\n<\/p>\n
(v)
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n307 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of
\nseven years and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 2000\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor six months, each for
\nattempting to murder Harvinder
\nKaur, Jasvinder Singh, Modan
\nSingh and Pritam Singh by
\ncausing fire arm injuries.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n326 <\/span>
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of
\nthree years and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 1500\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 3 months each, for causing
\ngrievous hurt to Gurbans Singh &
\nMukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n326 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of
\nthree years and to pay a fine of
\nRs. 1500\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor three months, each for
\ncausing grievous hurt to Gurbans
\nSingh and Mukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n325 <\/span>
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of two
\nyears and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
1000\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 3 months, each for causing
\ngrievous hurt with blunt weapon
\nto Jaspal Singh and Mukhtiar
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
(ix)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n325 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of two
\nyears and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
1000\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 3 months, each for causing
\ngrievous hurt with blunt weapon
\nto Jaspal Singh and Mukhtiar
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
(x)
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n324 <\/span>
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one
\nyear and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
500\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor two months each for causing
\nsimple hurt to Mander Singh &
\nMukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(xi)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n324 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one
\nyear and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
500\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 2 months, each for causing
\nsimple hurt to Mander Singh &
\nMukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(xii)
\nNaginder
\nSingh
\nBeant
\nSingh
\nNirbhai
\nSingh
\nSukhdev
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n323 of
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of six
\nmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
200\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 15 days, each for causing
\nsimple hurt to Jaspal Singh,
\nMander Singh, Jasvinder Kaur,
\nGurmit Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
(xiii)
\nMohinder
\nSingh
\nNasib
\nSingh
\nU\/s
\n323 <\/span>
\nr\/w S.\n<\/p>\n
149 <\/span><\/p>\n
I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
To undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of six
\nmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
200\/- each and in default of
\npayment of fine to further
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor 15 days, each for causing
\nsimple hurt to Jaspal Singh,
\nMander Singh, Jasvinder Kaur,
\nGurmit Singh & Mukhtiar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
The entire sentence was directed to run concurrently.
\nHowever, the period of detention already undergone by the
\naccused convicts during investigation or trial was directed to
\nbe deducted from the period of their substantive sentences.
\n\tAggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence an
\nappeal was preferred in the High Court of Punjab and
\nHaryana.  It was urged before the High Court that there was
\na delay in lodging the FIR, which was lodged at 10.30 P.M.
\nwhereas the alleged incident took place at 5.30 P.M. on 23rd
\nFebruary, 1996 and the report to the Illaqa Magistrate had
\nreached at 5.00 A.M. on 24th February, 1996, which goes to
\nshow that the complainant party had consumed time in
\ncoining up a story of their choice in connivance with the
\npolice.  That  non-explanation of the injuries on the person
\nof Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh, dented the prosecution
\ncase and because of non-explanation of the injuries by the
\nwitnesses on the person of the accused, it can be inferred
\nthat the complainant’s side was suppressing the genesis of
\nfight.  That there was a discrepancy between the eye-
\nwitnesses’ version and medical evidence.  That the plea of
\nalibi taken by Sukhdev Singh, Naginder Singh and Mohinder
\nSingh was proved by the defence and as such they could not
\nhave been convicted.  It was lastly submitted that their
\npresence at the spot was not unnatural as the houses of the
\nappellants were adjoining to the place of occurrence and
\nunlawful assembly with a common object to commit the
\nmurder of Harbans Singh and cause injuries to other
\npersons, cannot be inferred.  The High Court  recorded the
\nfindings that in the circumstances of the case, merely
\nbecause there was some delay in lodging  the FIR, it cannot
\nbe said that the prosecution had manufactured a story to
\nfalsely implicate the appellants, particularly so when the
\noccurrence was admitted by the appellants, maybe  with the
\ndenial of the presence of Mohinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh
\nand  Naginder Singh at the spot.  The so called delay would
\nat best call for more care and caution while scanning the
\nentire evidence so that there would not be chances of false
\nimplication. The element of delay in registering the
\ncomplaint or sending the same to the jurisdictional
\nMagistrate by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution, if
\nthe evidence adduced by the prosecution was worthy of
\ncredence.  The High Court found the eye- witnesses’ version
\ncredible and trustworthy.  As for non-explanation of the
\ninjuries on the appellants  Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh,
\nthe High Court has found that there were no injuries on their
\nperson by gandasa, which was claimed in defence.
\nAccording to the High Court, the injuries were superficial in
\nnature  except one on the person of Beant Singh which was
\nin the shape of diffused swelling and the doctor had opined
\nthat there was no visible injury mark seen, which showed
\nthat no injury was caused by the blunt side of the gandasa
\notherwise it would have left some mark of violence.  The
\neffect of the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of
\nthe accused had to be judged from the entire factual
\nposition, and having done so, in view of the High Court, the
\nprosecution had not suppressed the genesis of fight.  The
\nHigh Court opined that the appellants in the shape of
\naggressors formed an unlawful assembly causing the murder
\nof Harbans Singh and caused injuries to nine persons.  As
\nper the High Court, there was no discrepancy in the medical
\nevidence and the eye-witnesses’ account for the injuries
\ncaused by the use of firearm.  The distance between the
\nassailants and the injured, as per the prosecution  witnesses
\nwas 7-8 karams, whereas according to the medical evidence
\nthe shots fired were not from more than a distance of 4 ft.
\nfrom the muzzle end of the gun.  This is on account of
\nblackening around the wound. The High Court has held that
\nthe witnesses are rustic villagers from whom accuracy about
\nthe exact distance cannot be expected.  All the four injured
\nwitnesses examined have categorically stated in one voice
\nthat Mohinder Singh along with Nasib Singh armed with
\nlicensed guns came and fired at Harbans Singh, the
\ndeceased.  On perusal of the site plan, it is clear that the
\nplace of occurrence is of very small in dimension.  Five
\npersons from the complainant’s side including the deceased
\nwere present on the plot, whereas the other five persons,
\nwho had received injuries, had also reached the spot after
\nhearing the commotion.  From the appellants’ side, six
\npersons entered the said plot.  Thus, in all 16 persons were
\npresent at the time of incident and in such a situation it
\nwould not be possible for the witnesses to make the correct
\nassessment of the distance, from where the shots were fired
\nand in these circumstances the gun fires and the resultant
\ninjuries thereof, witnessed by the witnesses present and
\ninjured, cannot be disbelieved. Coupled with the fact that
\nthe licensed guns of the accused persons were recovered at
\nthe instance of the accused and the user of the same being
\nconfirmed by Forensic Science Lab, the witnesses’ version
\ncannot be disbelieved.  It was obvious that two guns had
\nbeen used in the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
The plea of alibi was disbelieved by the High Court on
\nthe grounds that the onus to prove the same heavily rests
\non the accused which they failed to discharge.  On these
\nfindings, the High Court has reached an irresistible and
\nunequivocal conclusion that the appellants’ conviction as
\nrecorded by the learned trial court on different counts
\ndeserves to be upheld and accordingly the appeal was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by special
\nleave is preferred before us.  It may be mentioned that the
\naccused appellant Mohinder Singh has been released by the
\nState considering his age and his appeal is not being pressed
\nby the counsel for the appellant.  The other accused-
\nappellant  Nasib Singh has been informed to have died, by
\nthe counsel for the appellant and as such his appeal stands
\nabated.  Thus, we are considering the appeal as regards
\nBeant Singh, Nirbhai Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Naginder
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
It is contended by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the prosecution has failed to explain the
\ninjuries caused to Nirbhai Singh (A-4) and Beant Singh (A-2)
\nand, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the
\ngenesis of offence.  The failure of the prosecution to offer
\nany explanation regarding the injuries found on the accused
\nwould mean that the evidence led by the prosecution
\nrelating to the incident is not true or at any rate is not
\nwholly true and thus reliance could not have been placed on
\nthat evidence to convict the accused persons.  To prove the
\nfact that Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh have received
\ninjuries, the defence has examined Dr. APS. Kochar, District
\nT.B. Officer, Civil Surgeon Office, Faridkot.  The doctor
\nstated that he had examined Beant Singh at 10.30 P.M. on
\n23rd February, 1996 at Faridkot and found  four injuries on
\nhis person.  The injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
\nInjury No.4 was declared as simple.  On X-Ray examination
\nreport, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were also found as simple in
\nnature and injury No.3 was grievous in nature.  On the same
\nday at 11.00 P.M., he examined Nirbhai Singh and found
\nthree injuries on his person.  Injury No.1 was caused by a
\nsharp weapon and rest of the injuries were caused by a
\nblunt weapon.  Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were simple and after
\ngetting X-Ray examination report injury No.3 was found to
\nbe grievous in nature.  On cross-examination, it was
\nadmitted by him that he attached no X-Ray report on his
\nrecord.  Similarly X-Ray report and skiagraph report were
\nnot on the judicial file.  Injury on the person of Beant Singh
\ncould possibly be caused as a result of falling on the hard
\nsurface.  Injury No.1 on the person of Nirbhai Singh could be
\ncaused with the blade of a razor.  Injury No.2 could be
\ncaused if the nail struck at a hard surface.  Injury No.3 on
\nthe person of Nirbhai Singh could be caused by falling on the
\nhard surface.  From the evidence of (DW-1), it is apparent
\nthat the injuries were simple in nature and the grievous
\nnature of injury could not be proved by the doctor by
\nproducing the X-Rays and skiagraph, on the basis of which
\nhe had formed the opinion of the grievous nature of the
\ninjury on Beant Singh as well as on Nirbhai Singh.
\nIn the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors.  vs.  State of
\nBihar (1976) 4 SCC 394, it is observed that any non-
\nexplanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution
\nmay affect the prosecution case.  But such non-explanation
\nmay assume greater importance where the evidence
\nconsisted of interested or inimical witnesses or where the
\ndefence gives a version which competes in probability  with
\nthat of the prosecution.  But where the evidence is clear,
\ncogent and credit-worthy and where the Court can
\ndistinguish the truth from the falsehood, the mere fact that
\nthe injuries are not explained by the prosecution, cannot
\nitself be a sole basis to reject such evidence and
\nconsequently the whole case.\n<\/p>\n
In Rizan and Anr.  vs.  State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2
\nSCC 661, this Court has held that non-explanation of the
\ninjuries sustained by the accused at about the time of
\noccurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
\ncircumstance.  But mere non-explanation of the injuries by
\nthe prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all
\ncases.  This principle applies to a case where the injuries
\nsustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where
\nthe evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and
\ndisinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that
\nif far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the
\nprosecution to explain the injuries.  This principle was
\ndiscussed in Sekar alias Raja Sekharan   vs.   State
\nrepresented by Inspector of Police, T.N. (2002) 8 SCC 354
\nand was reiterated in  Anil Kumar  vs.  State of U.P., (2004)
\n13 SCC 257.\n<\/p>\n
All the three aforesaid judgments have approved the
\nstatement of law enunciated in Lakshmi Singh’s Case
\n(supra).\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, there  is a creditworthy evidence
\nof PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW-10 viz., Harvinder Kaur,
\nJasvinder Kaur, Jaspal Singh and Pritam Singh, who have
\nvividly described the incident and the part played by each of
\nthe accused-appellants.  All the four witnesses are injured
\nwitnesses and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted.
\nThe evidence led by the defence  at best shows minor
\ninjuries suffered by Beant Singh and Nirbhai Singh which
\nwould not dislodge the prosecution case, which is
\nestablished by the evidence of creditworthy witnesses and
\nnon-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution, if any,
\nsustained by the accused-appellants would not result in
\ndisbelieving the prosecution version.
\nTo prove the case, the prosecution has examined four
\neye-witnesses.  Harvinder Kaur (PW-1), w\/o Harbans Singh
\n(deceased) has deposed that on the relevant day, her
\nhusband and Jaspal Singh were present at the place of
\nincident where they were preparing cow-dung cakes.  She
\nsaw  the accused-appellants proceeding  towards the
\nshamlat land.  Mohinder Singh and Nasib Singh were armed
\nwith licensed 12 bore guns, Naginder Singh with dang,
\nSukhdev Singh with Kassia, Beant Singh with Kirpan, Nirbhai
\nSingh with Kassruli.  Mohinder Singh raised a lalkara that
\nthey would teach us a lesson for adding their land with our
\nland.  Mohinder Singh accused fired from his 12 bore gun
\ntowards her husband Harbans Singh which hit him on the
\nleft side of his chest.  She ran towards her husband and
\nNasib Singh fired at her by his gun which hit her on her left
\nankle.  Mohinder Singh fired another shot which hit her
\nhusband on his right thigh while lying on the ground.
\nNaginder Singh-accused gave dang blows to Jaspal Singh by
\nhitting him but she could not tell the place of injuries on the
\nperson of Jaspal Singh.  Nasib Singh then fired from his 12
\nbore gun hitting Jasvinder Kaur on her right leg above her
\nright ankle on the front side.  Nirbhai Singh-accused caused
\ninjuires to Jasvinder Kaur with kassruli.  They raised alarm.
\nOn hearing noise Mander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit
\nSingh, Pritam Sikngh, Madan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh
\ncame to the spot to rescue them from the accused.  At that
\ntime Mohinder Singh fired from his gun hitting on the right
\nflank of Madan Singh and left leg of Pritam Singh.  Then
\nNaginder Singh, Beant Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Nirbhai
\nSingh with their respective weapons caused injuries to
\nMander Singh, Gurbans Singh, Gurmit Singh and Mukhtiar
\nSingh.  She has further stated in cross-examination that she
\nwas present at the spot 25-30 minutes prior to the
\noccurrence and she had seen the accused at a distance of 7-
\n8 karams.  The accused persons came carrying guns with
\nthem.  The other accused were also with them and they
\ncame together.  Mohinder Singh accused fired with the gun
\nfrom a distance of 7-8 karams at Harbans Singh.  Nasib
\nSingh was at a distance of 7-8 karams from Jasvinder Kaur
\nwhen he fired.  Nasib Singh and Mohinder Singh had fired
\nfrom 7-8 karams at Madan Singh and Pritam Singh.
\nFurther, Jasvinder Kaur (PW-2), another injured eye-
\nwitness, fully supports the version given by PW-1 of the
\nincident.  She specifically stated that Nasib Singh fired from
\nhis 12 bore gun towards her which hit her on her right leg
\nabove the ankle and the  pellets hit her on abdomen and
\nNirbhai Singh gave kassruli blows on her left foot.
\nJaspal Singh (PW-9) is another injured eye-witness
\nexamined by the prosecution who had described the incident
\nand the participation of the accused persons in the incident
\nas described by PW-1 and PW-2.  He had specifically
\ndeposed that accused-Naginder Singh gave three dang
\nblows to him, first blow hit on his shoulder and second blow
\nwas received by him on the back side at right hand.
\nPritam Singh (PW-10), another injured eye-witness,
\nhad supported the statements of the eye-witnesses in toto.
\nThe cross-examination of these witnesses could not
\nshow any contradiction or discrepancy in their version in
\nregard to the participation of the accused-appellants in the
\ncrime and the part played by them.  The ocular version of
\nthe witnesses find support from the medical evidence of  Dr.
\nKirandeep (PW-4) who has conducted the post-mortem on
\nthe deceased Harbans Singh.  Statement of Dr. M.G.
\nSharma (PW-3), who examined Mukhtiar Singh and Jaspal
\nSingh and statement of Dr. Tarlochan Singh (PW-15), who
\nexamined Harvinder Kaur  Gurmit Singh, Pritam Singh,
\nJasvinder Kaur and Mander Singh, fully corroborated the
\nocular version of the eye-witnesses.    We find that the eye-
\nwitnesses were wholly reliable and supported the case of the
\nprosecution to the hilt.\n<\/p>\n
The counsel then has urged before us that the
\nappellants before us  have not caused any injury to Harbans
\nSingh, the deceased, and, therefore, they could not have
\nbeen convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of
\nIPC for causing homicidal death of Harbans Singh.  The
\nconviction under Section 302\/149 could not be supported on
\nthe basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.
\nThe scope and ambit of Section 149 of IPC was the
\nsubject of discussion in various authorities of this Court.
\nIn Sukhbir Singh   v. State of Haryana,<\/a> (2002) 3 SCC
\n327, it is held by this Court that an accused is vicariously
\nguilty of the offence committed by other accused persons
\nonly if he is proved to be a member of an unlawful assembly
\nsharing its common object. Once the existence of common
\nobject of unlawful assembly is proved, each member of such
\nan assembly shall be liable for the main offence
\nnotwithstanding his actual participation in the commission of
\nthe offence. It is not necessary that each of the accused,
\nforming the unlawful assembly, must have committed the
\noffence with his own hands.\n<\/p>\n
The members of the unlawful assembly can be held
\nliable under Section 149 IPC, if it is shown that they knew
\nbeforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to
\nbe committed in prosecution of the common object. It is true
\nthat the common object does not require prior concert and a
\ncommon meeting of mind before the attack. It can develop
\neven on spot but the sharing of such an object by all the
\naccused must be shown to be in existence at any time
\nbefore the actual occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
In Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of
\nMaharashtra and Ors.,<\/a> (2003) 2 SCC 257, this Court has
\nheld that  Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code provides
\nthat if an offence is committed by any member of an
\nunlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of
\nthat assembly, or such as the members of that assembly
\nknew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
\nobject, every person who at the time of the committing of
\nthat offence, is a member of the same assembly is guilty of
\nthat offence. The two clauses of Section 149 vary in degree
\nof certainty. The first clause contemplates the commission of
\nan offence by any member of an unlawful assembly which
\ncan be held to have been committed in prosecution of the
\ncommon object of the assembly. The second clause
\nembraces within its fold the commission of an act which may
\nnot necessarily be the common object of the assembly,
\nnevertheless, the members of the assembly had knowledge
\nof likelihood of the commission of that offence in prosecution
\nof the common object. The common object may be
\ncommission of one offence while there may be likelihood of
\nthe commission of yet another offence, the knowledge
\nwhereof is capable of being safely attributable to the
\nmembers of the unlawful assembly. In either case, every
\nmember of the assembly would be vicariously liable for the
\noffence actually committed by any other member of the
\nassembly. A mere possibility of the commission of the
\noffence would not necessarily enable the court to draw an
\ninference that the likelihood of commission of such offence
\nwas within the knowledge of every member of the unlawful
\nassembly. It is difficult indeed, though not impossible, to
\ncollect direct evidence of such knowledge. An inference may
\nbe drawn from circumstances such as the background of the
\nincident, the motive, the nature of assembly, the nature of
\nthe arms carried by the members of the assembly, their
\ncommon object and the behaviour of the members soon
\nbefore, at or after the actual commission of the crime.
\nUnless the applicability of Section 149  either clause  is
\nattracted and the court is convinced, on facts and in law,
\nboth, of liability capable of being fastened vicariously by
\nreference to either clause of Section 149 IPC, merely
\nbecause a criminal act was committed by a member of the
\nassembly, every other member thereof would not
\nnecessarily become liable for such criminal act. The
\ninference as to likelihood of the commission of the given
\ncriminal act must be capable of being held to be within the
\nknowledge of another member of the assembly who is
\nsought to be held vicariously liable for the said criminal act.
\nIn State of Rajasthan v. Nathu and Ors.,<\/a> (2003) 5 SCC
\n537, this Court has held that if death had been caused in
\nprosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly,
\nit is not necessary to record a definite and specific finding as
\nto which particular accused out of the members of the
\nunlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful
\nassembly has come into existence, each member of the
\nassembly becomes vicariously liable for the criminal act of
\nany other member of the assembly committed in
\nprosecution of the common object of the assembly.
\nIt is held in Parsuram Pandey and Ors.  v. State of
\nBihar,<\/a> (2004) 13 SCC 189 that to attract Section 149 IPC
\nthe prosecution must prove that the commission of the
\noffence was by any member of an unlawful assembly and
\nsuch offence must have been committed in prosecution of
\nthe common object of the assembly or must be such that
\nthe members of the assembly knew that it was likely to be
\ncommitted. Unless these three elements are satisfied by the
\nprosecution the accused cannot be convicted with the aid of
\nSection 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
In Rabindra Mahto & Ors., v. State of Jharkhand, JT
\n2006 (1) SC 137, this Court has held that under Section 149
\nIPC, if the accused is a member of an unlawful assembly,
\nthe common object of which is to commit a certain crime,
\nand such a crime is committed by one or more of the
\nmembers of that assembly, every person who happens to be
\na member of that assembly would be liable for the
\ncommission of the crime being a member of it irrespective of
\nthe fact whether he has actually committed the criminal act
\nor not.    There is a distinction between the common object
\nand common intention.  The common object need not
\nrequire prior concert and a common meeting of minds before
\nthe attack, and an unlawful object can develop after the
\nassembly gathered before the commission of the crime at
\nthe spot itself.  There need not be prior meeting of the mind.
\nIt would be enough that the members of the assembly which
\nconstitutes five or more persons, have common object and
\nthat they acted as an assembly to achieve that object.  In
\nsubstance, Section 149 makes every member of the
\ncommon unlawful assembly responsible as a member for the
\nact of each and all merely because he is a member of the
\nunlawful assembly with common object to be achieved by
\nsuch an unlawful assembly.  At the same time, one has to
\nkeep in mind that mere presence in the unlawful assembly
\ncannot render a person liable unless there was a common
\nobject and that is shared by that person. The common
\nobject has to be found and can be gathered from the facts
\nand circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has established that all the accused-
\nappellants came to the spot of incident together.  All the
\naccused-appellants were carrying deadly weapons.  Two of
\nthem had carried 12 bore guns.  Immediately on reaching
\nthe spot Mohinder Singh one of the accused had opened fire
\nfollowed by firing by another accused-appellant Nasib Singh
\nand in the same transaction the accused-appellants had
\ncaused several injuries to  various persons, not only to the
\npersons who were present at the spot but also to the
\npersons who had reached the spot after hearing the
\ncommotion.  The facts found in the case clearly established
\nthe common object of the assembly.  The knowledge of
\nassembly that grievous hurt or death would be caused can
\nbe safely attributed to the members of the unlawful
\nassembly because of the fact that two of the members of the
\nassembly have carried the licensed guns.  An inference can
\nbe drawn of the knowledge of common object and formation
\nof common object from the behaviour of the members of the
\nassembly of the accused persons, who came together with
\ndeadly weapons and immediately started attacks
\nindiscriminately on the persons present there.  As many as
\nnine persons have received 31 injuries, which clearly
\nestablishes the common object of the unlawful assembly to
\ndo away with Harbans Singh and cause injuries to any
\nperson who tried to intervene.\n<\/p>\n
We are satisfied with the evidence led by the
\nprosecution that common object of all the accused
\nappellants of causing death of Harbans Singh was
\nestablished beyond any doubt and, therefore, the accused-
\nappellants were rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC with
\nthe aid of Section 149 of IPC apart from other convictions
\nunder other Sections of IPC for causing injuries to other
\npersons.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, in our view there is no merit
\nin this appeal.  The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 Author: P Naolekar Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 830 of 2005 PETITIONER: MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/03\/2006 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT P.P. NAOLEKAR, 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-172793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - 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\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-29T01:45:23+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-29T01:45:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5688,\"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\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-29T01:45:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - 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\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-29T01:45:23+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-29T01:45:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006"},"wordCount":5688,"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\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006","name":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-29T01:45:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohinder-singh-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/172793","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=172793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}