{"id":176145,"date":"2007-06-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007"},"modified":"2018-10-06T08:37:27","modified_gmt":"2018-10-06T03:07:27","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, B.P. Singh<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  822-825 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Punjab\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSanjiv Kumar @ Sanju and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/06\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; B.P. SINGH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe State of Punjab is in appeal against the judgment of<br \/>\nPunjab and Haryana High Court. While upholding the<br \/>\nconviction of two accused persons, namely, Vishal and Anil<br \/>\nKumar, High Court directed acquittal of the respondents.  In<br \/>\ncase of co-accused Gangadhar, conviction was altered to<br \/>\nSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).<br \/>\nIn all, 9 persons faced trial and the Trial Court had found each<br \/>\nto be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323<br \/>\nread with Section 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tSeven appeals were filed by eight of accused persons. As<br \/>\nnoted above, the High Court directed acquittal of the<br \/>\nrespondents while disposing of the appeal of Vishal and Anil<br \/>\nand altered the conviction of Gangadhar.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     The accused persons had gone for a pleasure trip to<br \/>\nManali in the year 1994. They had some joint photographs.<br \/>\nThese photographs were in possession of accused Anil Kumar<br \/>\nalias Babba. There was some dispute regarding the delivery of<br \/>\nthese photographs. The complainant side wanted to have the<br \/>\nphotographs while Babba did not want to part with those<br \/>\nphotographs. However, on 16.6.1995, around 9\/8.OO P.M. the<br \/>\naccused persons, namely, Sanjiv Kumar alias Sanju, Satnam<br \/>\nSingh alias Satta, Parminder Singh alias Khalsa, Ganga Dhar,<br \/>\nVishal Sharma, Gurpreet Singh Bedi, Sanjiv Kumar and Anil<br \/>\nKumar alias Babba and Amit Kumar assembled near the<br \/>\nS.T.D. booth of Satnam Singh alias Satta in the area of<br \/>\nKrishna Nagar, Hoshiarpur, Harbans Lal questioned as to<br \/>\nwhat was the problem in returning the photographs. Due to<br \/>\nthat an altercation took place in Gali No. 14, Kamlapur and as<br \/>\na result of that Sanjiv Kumar alias Sanju and Satnam Singh<br \/>\nalias Satta raised a lalkara that Harbans Lal and his<br \/>\ncompanions should be caught hold of and the matter should<br \/>\nbe finished once for all. Anil Kumar alias Babba gave a Kirpan<br \/>\nblow on the flank of Harbans Lal and Vishal Sharma gave a<br \/>\nKirpan blow on the chest of Rakesh Kumar alias Gori. Both of<br \/>\nthem fell down on the ground. Rajinder Kumar PW.5 and Raj<br \/>\nKumar alias Raju PW.6 raised an alarm. Still Ganga Dhar gave<br \/>\ntwo Kirpan blows on the left side of the forehead and right<br \/>\nthigh of Rajinder Kumar; Gurpreet Singh Bedi gave a hockey<br \/>\nblow on the left side of the ear of Rajinder Kumar. Parminder<br \/>\nSingh alias Khalsa and the owner of Judge S.T.D. and others<br \/>\nboys surrounded them and then Raju and Rajinder Kumar<br \/>\nraised alarm again. Upon this Anil Kumar alias Babba and his<br \/>\ncompanions ran away from the scene of occurrence. Injured<br \/>\nHarbans Lal succumbed to the injuries at the spot and Rakesh<br \/>\nKumar in the hospital, the same day. On the basis of<br \/>\ninformation lodged, investigation was undertaken and on<br \/>\ncompletion thereof charge-sheet was filed.  The trial Court<br \/>\nfound the accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced<br \/>\nthem as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe High Court found that no definite role was ascribed<br \/>\nto the respondents, and there was no evidence on record with<br \/>\nregard to the sharing of common object by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that<br \/>\npresence of acquitted respondents has been accepted both by<br \/>\nthe Trial Court and the High Court. That being so, their<br \/>\nconviction under Section 149 was clearly in order and the<br \/>\nHigh Court should not have interfered with the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThere is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in<br \/>\nspite of service of notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t As noted above, the High Court noted that the<br \/>\nprosecution has not even remotely established applicability of<br \/>\nSection 149 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe pivotal question is applicability of Section 149 IPC.<br \/>\nSaid provision has its foundation on constructive liability<br \/>\nwhich is the sine qua non for its operation.  The emphasis is<br \/>\non the common object and not on common intention.  Mere<br \/>\npresence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person<br \/>\nliable unless there was a common object and he was actuated<br \/>\nby that common object and that object is one of those set out<br \/>\nin Section 141.  Where common object of an unlawful<br \/>\nassembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be<br \/>\nconvicted with the help of Section 149.  The crucial question to<br \/>\ndetermine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more<br \/>\npersons and whether the said persons entertained one or more<br \/>\nof the common objects, as specified in Section 141.  It cannot<br \/>\nbe laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an<br \/>\novert act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a<br \/>\nmember of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a<br \/>\nmember of an assembly.  The only thing required is that he<br \/>\nshould have understood that the assembly was unlawful and<br \/>\nwas likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the<br \/>\npurview of Section 141.  The word object means the purpose<br \/>\nor design and, in order to make it common, it must be shared<br \/>\nby all.  In other words, the object should be common to the<br \/>\npersons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they<br \/>\nshould all be aware of it and concur in it.  A common object<br \/>\nmay be formed by express agreement after mutual<br \/>\nconsultation, but that is by no means necessary.  It may be<br \/>\nformed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly<br \/>\nand the other members may just join and adopt it. Once<br \/>\nformed, it need not continue to be the same.  It may be<br \/>\nmodified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression<br \/>\nin prosecution of common object as appearing in Section 149<br \/>\nhave to be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain<br \/>\nthe common object. It must be immediately connected with<br \/>\nthe common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There<br \/>\nmust be community of object and the object may exist only up<br \/>\nto a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an<br \/>\nunlawful assembly may have community of object up to<br \/>\ncertain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and<br \/>\nthe knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to<br \/>\nbe committed in prosecution of their common object may vary<br \/>\nnot only according to the information at his command, but<br \/>\nalso according to the extent to which he shares the community<br \/>\nof object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section<br \/>\n149, IPC may be different on different members of the same<br \/>\nassembly.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tCommon object is different from a common intention<br \/>\nas it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting<br \/>\nof minds before the attack.  It is enough if each has the same<br \/>\nobject in view and their number is five or more and that they<br \/>\nact as an assembly to achieve that object. The common object<br \/>\nof an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and<br \/>\nlanguage of the members composing it, and from a<br \/>\nconsideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be<br \/>\ngathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members<br \/>\nof the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful<br \/>\nassembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially<br \/>\na question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature<br \/>\nof the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the<br \/>\nbehaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.<br \/>\nIt is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful<br \/>\nassembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be<br \/>\ntranslated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation<br \/>\nto Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it<br \/>\nwas assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not<br \/>\nnecessary that the intention or the purpose, which is<br \/>\nnecessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into<br \/>\nexistence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent<br \/>\nis not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or<br \/>\neven for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently<br \/>\nbecome unlawful. In other words it can develop during the<br \/>\ncourse of incident at the spot eo instante.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tSection 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of<br \/>\nthe section means that the offence to be committed in<br \/>\nprosecution of the common object must be one which is<br \/>\ncommitted with a view to accomplish the common object. In<br \/>\norder that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence<br \/>\nmust be connected immediately with the common object of the<br \/>\nunlawful assembly of which the accused was member. Even if<br \/>\nthe offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the<br \/>\ncommon object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section<br \/>\n141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the<br \/>\nmembers knew was likely to be committed and this is what is<br \/>\nrequired in the second part of the section. The purpose for<br \/>\nwhich the members of the assembly set out or desired to<br \/>\nachieve is the object.  If the object desired by all the members<br \/>\nis the same, the knowledge that is the object which is being<br \/>\npursued is shared by all the members and they are in general<br \/>\nagreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now the<br \/>\ncommon object of the assembly. An object is entertained in<br \/>\nthe human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no<br \/>\ndirect evidence can be available and, like intention, has<br \/>\ngenerally to be gathered from the act which the person<br \/>\ncommits and the result therefrom. Though no hard and fast<br \/>\nrule can be laid down under the circumstances from which<br \/>\nthe common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be<br \/>\ncollected as noted above from the nature of the assembly,<br \/>\narms carried and behaviour at or before or after the scene of<br \/>\noccurrence. The word knew used in the second limb of the<br \/>\nsection implies something more than a possibility and it<br \/>\ncannot be made to bear the sense of might have been known.<br \/>\nPositive knowledge is necessary. When an offence is<br \/>\ncommitted in prosecution of the common object, it would<br \/>\ngenerally be an offence which the members of the unlawful<br \/>\nassembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of<br \/>\nthe common object.  That, however, does not make the<br \/>\nconverse proposition true; there may be cases which would<br \/>\ncome within the second part but not within the first part. The<br \/>\ndistinction between the two parts of Section 149 cannot be<br \/>\nignored or obliterated.  In every case it would be an issue to be<br \/>\ndetermined, whether the offence committed falls within the<br \/>\nfirst part or it was an offence such as the members of the<br \/>\nassembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of<br \/>\nthe common object and falls within the second part. However,<br \/>\nthere may be cases which would be within first part of the<br \/>\noffences committed in prosecution of the common object<br \/>\nwould also be generally, if not always, within the second part,<br \/>\nnamely, offences which the parties knew to be likely<br \/>\ncommitted in the prosecution of the common object. <a href=\"\/doc\/952560\/\">(See<br \/>\nChikkarange Gowda and others v. State of Mysore  AIR<\/a> 1956<br \/>\nSC 731).\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tA 4-Judges Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1048134\/\">Masalti and Ors. v.<br \/>\nState of U.P. (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 202) observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThen it is urged that the evidence given<br \/>\nby the witnesses conforms to the same<br \/>\nuniform pattern and since no specific part is<br \/>\nassigned to all the assailants, that evidence<br \/>\nshould not have been accepted.  This<br \/>\ncriticism again is not well-founded. Where a<br \/>\ncrowd of assailants who are members of an<br \/>\nunlawful assembly proceeds to commit an<br \/>\noffence of murder in pursuance of the<br \/>\ncommon object of the unlawful assembly, it<br \/>\nis often not possible for witnesses to describe<br \/>\naccurately the part played by each one of the<br \/>\nassailants.  Besides, if a large crowd of<br \/>\npersons armed with weapons assaults the<br \/>\nintended victims, it may not be necessary<br \/>\nthat all of them have to take part in the<br \/>\nactual assault.  In the present case, for<br \/>\ninstance, several weapons were carried by<br \/>\ndifferent members of the unlawful assembly,<br \/>\nbut it appears that the guns were used and<br \/>\nthat was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a<br \/>\ncase, it would be unreasonable to contend<br \/>\nthat because the other weapons carried by<br \/>\nthe members of the unlawful assembly were<br \/>\nnot used, the story in regard to the said<br \/>\nweapons itself should be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appreciation of evidence in such a complex<br \/>\ncase is no doubt a difficult task; but criminal<br \/>\ncourts have to do their best in dealing with<br \/>\nsuch cases and it is their duty to sift the<br \/>\nevidence carefully and decide which part of it<br \/>\nis true and which is not.<\/p>\n<p>12.\tTo similar effect is the observation in <a href=\"\/doc\/1733210\/\">Lalji v. State of U.P.<\/a><br \/>\n(1989 (1) SCC 437). It was observed that:\n<\/p>\n<p>Common object of the unlawful assembly<br \/>\ncan be gathered from the nature of the<br \/>\nassembly, arms used by them and the<br \/>\nbehaviour of the assembly at or before the<br \/>\nscene of occurrence. It is an inference to be<br \/>\ndeduced from the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\neach case.<\/p>\n<p>13.\tAbove being the position in law on the background facts,<br \/>\nthe High Courts judgment directing acquittal of the<br \/>\nrespondent does not suffer from infirmity.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe appeals are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, B.P. Singh CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 822-825 of 2001 PETITIONER: State of Punjab RESPONDENT: Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/06\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; [&hellip;]<\/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-176145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-06T03:07:27+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T03:07:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2229,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T03:07:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-06T03:07:27+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T03:07:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007"},"wordCount":2229,"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\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007","name":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T03:07:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-sanjiv-kumar-sanju-and-ors-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Sanjiv Kumar @ Sanju And Ors on 14 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/176145","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=176145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}