{"id":180672,"date":"2002-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002"},"modified":"2019-01-24T15:54:22","modified_gmt":"2019-01-24T10:24:22","slug":"praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 523<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>V.S. Aggarwal, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. Praveen Kumar, hereinafter described as the<br \/>\nappellant, has filed the present appeal directed<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and the order of sentence passed<br \/>\nby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated<br \/>\n9th March, 2001 and 14th March, 2001 respectively.<br \/>\nThe learned trial court held the appellant guilty of<br \/>\nthe offence punishable under Section 307\/325 of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code. Thereupon he was sentenced to<br \/>\nundergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of<br \/>\nRs. 10,000\/- for the offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine<br \/>\nhe was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six<br \/>\nmonths for causing injuries on the person of Maya<br \/>\nDevi. He was further sentenced for seven years<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000\/- for<br \/>\ninflicting injuries on the person of Dharamdev for the<br \/>\nabove said offence under Section 307 Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode. In default of payment of fine he was to further<br \/>\nundergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment<br \/>\nand a fine of Rs. 10,000\/- with respect to the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code for<br \/>\ninflicting injuries on the person of Harvinder Singh.<br \/>\nIn default he was to undergo further simple<br \/>\nimprisonment for six months. All the sentences were<br \/>\ndirected to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The facts of the prosecution case are that law<br \/>\nhad been put to motion on 8th January, 1996 when at<br \/>\n11.25 AM an information was received at police station<br \/>\nSamaipur Badli that a quarrel was going on at house<br \/>\nNo. 75, Gali No. 8, Dr. Sudhir Wali Gali, Samai Pur<br \/>\nBadli and that knives were being used. A daily diary<br \/>\nNo. 47B was recorded. ASI Man Chand was directed to<br \/>\nproceed to the spot for further action. Accompanied<br \/>\nby constable Mahavir Singh he went to the said site.<br \/>\nWhen he reached there the injured had already been<br \/>\nremoved to the hospital by the police control room<br \/>\nvan. Blood was lying in the street.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. ASI Man Chand left constable Mahavir Singh on<br \/>\nthe spot to guard the spot and went to Hindu Rao<br \/>\nHospital. He obtained the medical legal reports of<br \/>\nHarvinder Singh, Maya Devi and Dharamdev. Maya Devi&#8217;s<br \/>\nstatement was recorded which became the subject mater<br \/>\nof the first information report. She had stated that<br \/>\nher son Harvinder Singh was cleaning the drain. She<br \/>\nhad gone inside to fetch a bucket of water. She saw<br \/>\non coming out that Jag Pal, Punit and Praveen were<br \/>\ngiving beating to Harvinder Singh with lathis,<br \/>\nHarvinder Singh had fallen down on the ground. Jag<br \/>\nPal Praveen and Punit ran towards her. Jag Pal had a<br \/>\nlathi. Puneet too was armed with a lathi while<br \/>\nPraveen had a knife. Jag Pal gave a lathi blow on her<br \/>\nhead. Praveen gave a knife blow on the right side of<br \/>\nher stomach while Puneet also gave a lathi blow on her<br \/>\nstomach. She fell down. Thereafter they gave blows<br \/>\nwith knives and lathis on the person of Dharamdev. In<br \/>\nthe meantime, Bimla also came there with an iron pipe.<br \/>\nJagpal, Bimla, Punit and Praveen entered their house<br \/>\nand gave beating to their daughter-ion-law.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. On the said statement ASI Man Chand made<br \/>\nendorsement and first information report was recorded<br \/>\nwith respect to the offences punishable under Section<br \/>\n307\/452\/506\/34 Indian Penal Code. Appellant was<br \/>\narrested on 8th January, 1996. He made a disclosure<br \/>\nstatement and stated that he had thrown away the knife<br \/>\nin the bushes near Swaroop Nagar. The weapon of<br \/>\noffence could not be recovered. After obtaining<br \/>\nopinion with respect to the nature of injuries on<br \/>\nthese broad facts, report under Section 173 Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The learned trial court had framed charge<br \/>\nagainst the appellant and others with respect to the<br \/>\noffence punishable under Section 307\/34. The<br \/>\nappellant and others pleaded not guilty and claimed a<br \/>\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. In support of its case prosecution had examined<br \/>\n12 witnesses in all which included the testimony of<br \/>\nthe alleged eye witnesses. Praveen when examined<br \/>\nunder Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded<br \/>\nhis innocence and stated that while he was standing<br \/>\noutside his house. Kanta Devi was throwing filth in<br \/>\nthe drain. He protested. She abused him. Two or<br \/>\nthree persons of the street intervened and he was<br \/>\nasked to go inside. Thereupon Kanwar Singh, Maya<br \/>\nDevi, Kanta, Harvinder, Dharamdev and Bhopal started<br \/>\nabusing him outside his house. He remained inside.<br \/>\nAll the said persons came upstairs. They caught hold<br \/>\nof the appellant and started beating him. Harvinder<br \/>\ngave a lathi blow on his head. Thereupon he fell<br \/>\ndown. His mother Bimla Devi intervened and tried to<br \/>\nrescue him. Kanwar Singh, Maya Devi caught hold of<br \/>\nhis mother and Kanta and Harvinder started giving<br \/>\nkicks and fist blows to her. Bimla fell down.<br \/>\nThereupon all of them started breaking window panes<br \/>\nand light fittings. The police had come and that he<br \/>\nwas also medically examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In defense the appellant examined Rajesh<br \/>\nThukral, DW-1, Ahlmed in the court of Mrs. Seema<br \/>\nMaini. He proved the certified copy of the complained<br \/>\nfiled by the appellant and others and that the<br \/>\ncomplainants side had been summoned as accused. O.P.<br \/>\nThakur, DW-2 and examined Praveen Kumar and proved the<br \/>\ninjuries on his person, namely one inch lacerated<br \/>\nwound over left pariental region, four inch size CLW<br \/>\nover right eyebrow. The injuries were opined to be<br \/>\nsimple and could be caused by a fall. DW-3, Janam Raj<br \/>\na resident of the same village had supported the<br \/>\nversion of the appellant which hardly requires a<br \/>\nreproduction. Ram Pat, DW-4 also made a similar<br \/>\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The learned trial court on appraisal of the<br \/>\nevidence acquitted the other two accused but held that<br \/>\nthe appellant had caused grievous hurt on the person<br \/>\nof Harvinder Singh and attempted to murder Dharamdev<br \/>\nand Maya Devi and was held guilty of the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. With<br \/>\nthese findings and the fact that prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nwere believed so far as the appellant and concerned,<br \/>\nthe learned trial court passed the impugned judgment<br \/>\nfollowed by the order of sentence. Aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsame the present appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that<br \/>\nthere was no ground to believe and act on the<br \/>\ntestimonies of the said prosecution witnesses who<br \/>\naccording to him were totally interested and<br \/>\nunreliable.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Maya Devi, PW-4 is one of the injured. She<br \/>\nstated that on the said date at 1.00 PM she was<br \/>\nhelping her son to clean the drain when besides others<br \/>\nwho have been acquitted Praveen stabbed her with a<br \/>\nknife in the abdomen. She had become unconconscious.<br \/>\nShe stated that she remained in the hospital for 20 to<br \/>\n22 days. She did not know if her statement had been<br \/>\nrecorded or not. During cross-examination she stated<br \/>\nthat a sweeper had been appointed to clean the drain<br \/>\nbut the appellant and others did not allow the sweeper<br \/>\nto clean. A complaint had been made. The witness<br \/>\nstated that she had poured water in front of the gate<br \/>\nof her house. When she fell down she became<br \/>\nunconscious. She denied that all the filthy material<br \/>\nand waste of the house is thrown by her in the drain<br \/>\nand this is the cause of the dispute. She denied that<br \/>\nHarvinder had given lathi blow on the head of Praveen.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Dharamdev, PW-2 is the other injured person. He<br \/>\ntoo stated that Praveen had caused injuries on his<br \/>\nchest with the knife. He too was subjected to<br \/>\ncross-examination and admitted and stated that he<br \/>\nregained consciousness in the hospital. He had no<br \/>\nidea as to who had taken him to the hospital.<br \/>\nHarvinder Singh, PW-6 is the third injured person and<br \/>\nmade a statement in court that after the initial<br \/>\nquarrel Praveen had taken out a knife from his pocket<br \/>\nand stabbed him in his abdomen. He was admitted to<br \/>\nthe hospital besides three witnesses who were injured<br \/>\nHarbaksh Singh appeared as PW-8. Mrs. Kanta also<br \/>\nmade a similar statement as PW-9. She too supported<br \/>\nthe prosecution version as testified by the witnesses<br \/>\nreferred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. While it is true that all the injured persons<br \/>\nthemselves have appeared as witnesses but it has to be<br \/>\nremembered that a person who is himself injured<br \/>\nordinarily would be a good witness to depose about the<br \/>\nincident. They would like the guilty persons to be<br \/>\nbrought to the book rather than innocent person being<br \/>\nimplicated. Their testimonies cannot be ignored<br \/>\nmerely because there was a dispute between the parties<br \/>\npertaining to the drain. The testimonies of these<br \/>\nwitnesses further get support from the medical<br \/>\nevidence on the record which establishes that in fact<br \/>\ninjuries were caused had right acted and believed the<br \/>\ntestimonies of these witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. The other argument of the learned counsel which<br \/>\nwas pressed vehemently was that in the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case the doctors who had examined, treated and<br \/>\ngiven opinions with respect to the injuries on the so<br \/>\ncalled persons have not been examined and therefore it<br \/>\ncannot be termed that offence under Section 307 of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code had been established. Reliance in<br \/>\nthis regard has been placed on the decision of this<br \/>\ncourt in  Narinder Kumar v. The State .\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Dr. Ravi Gupta had appeared as PW-1 and stated<br \/>\nthat Dr. Ruma Jain left the hospital (Hindu Rao<br \/>\nHospital). She had examined Harvinder Singh and<br \/>\nproved the injuries recorded by Dr. Ruma Jain. He<br \/>\nadmitted that he himself had not examined the patient.<br \/>\nSimilarly Dr. Arun Yadav, PW-2 opined that Dr.<br \/>\nMurari Lal had been working with him in the department<br \/>\nand he had left for Saudi Arabia. He proved the MLC<br \/>\nPW1\/A to be in the hand of Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. O.P.<br \/>\nThakur, PW-3 is the only person who stated that he had<br \/>\nexamined Maya Devi on 8.1.1996. He stated that<br \/>\nincised wound one and a half inch size in right<br \/>\nhypoohondrium, omentum was protruding out of the<br \/>\nwound. Dr. A.K. Chaturvedi, PW-12 stated that Dr.<br \/>\nUmesh Tyagi had opined the injuries on the person of<br \/>\nDharamdev to be dangerous and Dr. Umesh is not in<br \/>\nservice of Hindo Rao Hospital. Even injury on the<br \/>\nperson of Maya Devi had been opined by Dr. Umesh to<br \/>\nbe dangerous. He had brought the case sheet of<br \/>\nDharamdev and Maya Devi.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. While it is correct that when expert opinion is<br \/>\ngiven by the individual it is he who must appear as a<br \/>\nwitness and prove the same. But in the present case<br \/>\nin hand argument of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant looses much of its significance for the<br \/>\nreason that it can be established on basis of the oral<br \/>\nevidence on the record that the appellant was wielding<br \/>\nthe knife and attacking on the vital parts of the<br \/>\nwitnesses referred to above. Intention to commit<br \/>\nmurder can be inferred from the nature of the<br \/>\ninjuries. The nature of the attack and the parts of<br \/>\nthe body on which injuries are purported to be caused.<br \/>\nOnce such facts are established inference can be<br \/>\ndrawn and in that event to urge that the nature of the<br \/>\ninjury has not been opined by a particular doctor who<br \/>\nhad examined the patient would be improper. In the<br \/>\npresent case in hand injuries had been caused on the<br \/>\nvital parts of the body of the injured with the knife.<br \/>\nThis clearly show the real intent at the relevant time<br \/>\nand in that view of the mater the findings of the<br \/>\nlearned trial court that offence under Section 307<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code had been established wit respect to<br \/>\nthe injuries on the person of Maya Devi and Dharamdev.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. It was in that event contended that there were<br \/>\ninjuries also is on the person of the appellant and<br \/>\nthe prosecution had not cared to explain the same.<br \/>\nReliance was placed on the testimony of Dr. O.P.<br \/>\nThakur, DW-2. The argument in its legal prospective<br \/>\nthat it is the duty of the prosecution to explain<br \/>\ninjuries on the person of the accused is not in<br \/>\ncontroversy but the said principle will not come into<br \/>\nbeing when there are superficial injuries on the<br \/>\nperson of the accused. Herein the appellant had only<br \/>\na lacerated wound on the left parietal region and a<br \/>\nCLW over right eyebrow. Dr. O.P. Thakur opined<br \/>\ninjuries could be caused by a fall. Keeping in view<br \/>\nthe nature of the injuries therefore it was not<br \/>\nnecessary for the prosecution to explain such minor<br \/>\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. The last submission in this regard was about the<br \/>\nsentence that has been awarded. The appellant was<br \/>\nstated to be young in age, a married person with two<br \/>\nchildren. When he was examined under Section 313 Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure he had given his age to be 26<br \/>\nyears. Taking stock of these facts in the peculiar<br \/>\nfacts a lenient view can be taken. Interest of<br \/>\njustice shall be fully met if sentence is reduced to<br \/>\nthree years rigorous imprisonment with no interference<br \/>\nwith respect to the fine imposed. Accordingly, for<br \/>\nthese reasons the appeal on its merit fails but is<br \/>\nallow with respect to the quantum of sentence. He<br \/>\nis sentenced to undergo three years rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment for the offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n307 Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 10,000\/-, in<br \/>\ndefault of payment of fine he shall undergo further<br \/>\nsimple<br \/>\nimprisonment for six months. Similar sentence<br \/>\nis imposed with respect to causing injuries on the<br \/>\nperson of Dharamdev. For the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 325 Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to<br \/>\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine<br \/>\nof Rs. 10,000\/-. In default of payment of fine he<br \/>\nshall undergo further simple imprisonment for three<br \/>\nmonths. All the substantive sentences shall run<br \/>\nconcurrently.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 523 Author: V Aggarwal Bench: V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Praveen Kumar, hereinafter described as the appellant, has filed the present appeal directed against the judgment and the order of sentence [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - 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\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-24T10:24:22+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\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Praveen Kumar S\\\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T10:24:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2304,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Praveen Kumar S\\\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T10:24:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Praveen Kumar S\\\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - 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\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-24T10:24:22+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\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T10:24:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002"},"wordCount":2304,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002","name":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T10:24:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-so-shri-jagpal-vs-state-of-delhi-on-26-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Praveen Kumar S\/O Shri Jagpal, &#8230; vs State Of Delhi on 26 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/180672","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=180672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}