{"id":197647,"date":"1996-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996"},"modified":"2016-05-27T08:49:40","modified_gmt":"2016-05-27T03:19:40","slug":"s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.N. Ray, B.L. Hansaria<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nS.K. NAIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nG.N. RAY,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This appeal  is directed  against\tthe  judgment  dated<br \/>\n3.3.1987 passed\t by the\t Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  n<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal\t No. 117 DB of 1986 affirming the conviction<br \/>\nunder  Section\t 302  IPC   and\t consequential\tsentence  of<br \/>\nimprisonment for  life and  fine of  Rs. 2,000\/-  in default<br \/>\nfurther rigorous  imprisonment for six months and conviction<br \/>\nunder Section  324 IPC\tand consequential  sentence  of\t six<br \/>\nmonths rigorous\t imprisonment passed by the learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Bhatinda, in Sessions case No. 24 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  Sri S.K. Nair was charged for committing<br \/>\nmurder of  Naik B.  Chowdhury and  causing injuries  with  a<br \/>\n&#8216;khukri&#8217; (Nepaleese  dagger) on\t Havildar P.P.S. Kashyap and<br \/>\nthe driver  Joga Singh\twithin the  barrack in the Air Force<br \/>\nStation, Bhisana  in the  early morning\t of August 13. 1982.<br \/>\nThe prosecution\t case in  short is that the accused S.K.Nair<br \/>\nand the\t deceased B.  Chowdhury\t and  the  injured  Havilder<br \/>\nP.P.S. Kashyap\tused to\t stay  in  the\tsame  barrack  being<br \/>\nbarrack No.19  in the  said Air\t Force Station, Bhisana. The<br \/>\ndeceased Naik  B. Chowdhury  was to  proceed on\t leave\twith<br \/>\neffect from  August 13,\t 1982 and  the driver Joga Singh was<br \/>\ndeputed to  pick up  the said  Naik Chowdhury  at 5  A.M. on<br \/>\nAugust 13,  1982 and  to prop him at Ambala Railway Station.<br \/>\nThe said  Naik Chowdhury  requested Havildar  P.P.B. Kashyap<br \/>\nwent to\t awake Sri  Chowdhury for  the second  time at about<br \/>\n4.45 AM.,  he noticed  the accused sitting on his cot with a<br \/>\n&#8216;khukri&#8217; in  his right\thand being  taken out of its sheath.<br \/>\nThe accused  inflicted two  khukri blows  on the head of the<br \/>\nsaid Kashyap  who than\traised noise  and  the\tdeceased  B.<br \/>\nChowdhury and Mr. Suresh Kumar got up from sleep and noticed<br \/>\nthat the  accused was  giving blows  with khukri to the said<br \/>\nSri Kashyap.  Sri kashyap  however could manage to go out of<br \/>\nthe barrack  through  a\t window.  The  deceased\t B.Chowdhury<br \/>\ncaught hold  of the  accused and  told him  that he would be<br \/>\nproduced before the officers. The accused then retorted that<br \/>\nhe would  be  produced\tbefore\tthe  officers  only  if\t Sri<br \/>\nChowdhury was  alive by then. Saving sc, the accused started<br \/>\ninflicting khukri  blows on  the person\t of the deceased and<br \/>\ndealt 19  blows on  different parts of his body. As a result<br \/>\nthe said  Sri Chowdhury\t died on the spot. Joga Singh driver<br \/>\nreached by  that time and when he tried to stop the accused,<br \/>\nhe was\talso attacked by the accused and Joga Singh suffered<br \/>\none khukri  blow on  his right\tflank and he then ran but of<br \/>\nthe barrack.  Both Sri\tKashyap and  Joga Singh went to M.I.<br \/>\nRoom where  they were  treated\tby  Dr.\t R.K.  Bhattacharji.<br \/>\nThereafter, the\t Security  Officer,  Sri  G.S.R\t Sharma\t and<br \/>\nSergeant Benedict  along  with\tR.K.  Bhattacharji  came  to<br \/>\nbarrack No.19  and found  the dead  body  of  the  said\t Sri<br \/>\nChowdhury and  they also  found that the accused in military<br \/>\nuniform was  standing with a khukri in his hand. The accused<br \/>\nsurrendered himself  to the security officer and handed over<br \/>\nthe khukri to him. The accused was formally arrested by S.I.<br \/>\nBalbir Singh  and inquest  or the dead body was held and the<br \/>\ndead body  was sent  for postmortem  examination. The  post-<br \/>\nmortem examination  revealed that  the deceased had suffered<br \/>\n19 khukri  blows on various parts of his body and the doctor<br \/>\nholding post-mortem  and they were sufficient to cause death<br \/>\nin the\tordinary course\t of nature  and also  opined that on<br \/>\naccount of such injuries, the death was instantaneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It may  be stated\there that  the\taccused\t denied\t the<br \/>\ncharges and  pleaded false  accusation against\thim  in\t his<br \/>\nstatement  under   Section  313\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure. The\taccused examined Lt, Col, H.B. Chkraborty as<br \/>\na defence witness.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  Additional Sessions Judge, considering the<br \/>\nevidences of  the injured  eye-witnesses and other evidences<br \/>\nadduced in the case, held the accused guilty of the offences<br \/>\nunder Section  302 and\t324 IPC\t and  passed  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nsentences against  him. On appeal before the High Court, the<br \/>\nconvictions and\t sentences passed  against the\taccused were<br \/>\nuphold. Both  the learned  Sessions Judge and the High Court<br \/>\ndid not\t accept the contention made on behalf of the accused<br \/>\nthat the  accused being\t a confirmed  paranoid\twas  not  in<br \/>\nnormal frame of mind and was incapable of understanding what<br \/>\nhe had\tbeen doing  at the  time of  commission of  the said<br \/>\noffences. It  has been indicated by the courts below that at<br \/>\nthe relevant  time, the\t words and  actions of\tthe  accused<br \/>\nclearly\t demonstrated\tthat  he   was\tquite\tcapable\t  of<br \/>\nunderstanding the  nature of  his activities. Accordingly he<br \/>\nwas not entitled to the benefit under Section 84 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At the  hearing of\t this appeal,  the  learned  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for\t the  appellant\t  has  submitted   that\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case  that it was the accused who had caused the<br \/>\ndeath of  the deceased\tby inflicting  khukri blows  and had<br \/>\nalso caused  injuries on  the said  Sri Kashyap and Sri Joga<br \/>\nSingh has  been established by leading evidences of the eye-<br \/>\nwitnesses and  such finding can not be assailed in the facts<br \/>\nof the\tcase. But  the learned counsel for the appellant has<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tthe mental  frame of a paranoid had not been<br \/>\nappreciated by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  counsel has  submitted that  a paranoid is<br \/>\nnot only  a person  of unsound\tmind but  a paranoid suffers<br \/>\nfrom special  and  peculiar  ideas  and\t visions  which\t are<br \/>\ndifferent from other persons of unsound mind. As a result, a<br \/>\nparanoid within moments may completely lose his normal frame<br \/>\nof mind\t and be\t seized of special emotions thereby impelled<br \/>\nto behave  wildly and  such sudden  fit of  emotion may also<br \/>\nvanish within  moments. For  a paranoid,  there is  no lucid<br \/>\ninterval as  may be  found in  other cases of insanity or in<br \/>\npersons afflicted by unsound mind.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It has  been contended  by the  learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant that the accused appellant was a confirmed patient<br \/>\ndiagnosed as  paranoid. He  was\t repeatedly  treated  as  an<br \/>\nindoor patient\tfor such  mental disease  and the doctor who<br \/>\nhad treated  the accused   gave\t opinion  that\tthe  accused<br \/>\nshould be  discharged from  service. Such facts have clearly<br \/>\nestablished  from  the\trecord\tof  his\t treatment  and\t the<br \/>\ndeposition of  lt. Col.\t Chakraborty. It is unfortunate that<br \/>\ndespite such  medical reports and the opinion of the doctor.<br \/>\nthe accused was retained in service and he was allowed to be<br \/>\nexposed to the grave risk to himself and also to others with<br \/>\nwhom he was staying in the barrack.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  counsel has  also  submitted\tthat  it  is<br \/>\nrevealed from the depositions in the case that the appellant<br \/>\nwas in\tfriendly  terms\t with  the  deceased  and  the\tsaid<br \/>\ninjured. Havildar  kashyap. No\tmotive\thas  been  ascribed.<br \/>\nwhich was  likely to  impel the\t accused to  commit the said<br \/>\noffences. It  is quite\tevident that  all of  a\t sudden\t the<br \/>\nappellant attacked  Sri kashyap\t with Khukri  and  when\t the<br \/>\ndeceased caught\t hold of  the accused.\the was also attacked<br \/>\nand Joga  Singh was  also attacked when he tried to stop the<br \/>\naccused. The fact that the accused again became normal. when<br \/>\nthe sudden  impulsive bout disappeared, is also demonstrable<br \/>\nfrom the  fact that  when the  superior officers came to the<br \/>\nbarrack. they  found him  dressed in military uniform and he<br \/>\nhanded over  the KHukri\t to the\t superior officer  and\talso<br \/>\nsurrendered without  any attempt  of resistance. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel has  submitted that  if the  peculiar  traits  of  a<br \/>\nparanoid were  considered by  the  court  in  the  light  of<br \/>\nrecognised medical  literatures on  a paranoid,\t the  courts<br \/>\nbelow would  not have  committed the  error in rejecting the<br \/>\nplea of\t protection under  Section  84\tIPC  by\t erroneously<br \/>\napplying the  usual test  in other  cases  of  persons\twith<br \/>\nunsound mind.  The learned counsel had, therefore, submitted<br \/>\nthat the  accused being\t unfortunate victim  of a particular<br \/>\nmental disease\tdeserves to  be acquitted  by giving him the<br \/>\nprotection under Section 84 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  given our carefully consideration to the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances  of the  case and  evidences produced.  We<br \/>\nare, however, unable to accept the submission of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t that  being  a\t paranoid,  the\t appellant  must  be<br \/>\npresumed to have committed the said offences being seized of<br \/>\nsudden impulsive  fits of  passion for\twhich temporarily he<br \/>\nwas completely\tincapable to  understand as  to what  he had<br \/>\nbeen doing  with what  consequences.   Even if it is assumed<br \/>\nthat in\t the case  of a paranoia, the ordinary test of lucid<br \/>\ninterval as  applicable in the case of patients with unsound<br \/>\nmind, is  not to  be applied, and a paranoid is likely to be<br \/>\nseized\tof   sudden  bouts  of\timpulsive  feats  for  which<br \/>\ntemporarily he\tbecomes completely  incapable to  understand<br \/>\nthe implication of his activities, and such sudden bouts may<br \/>\nalso disappear\twithin a  very short  time, in\tthe  instant<br \/>\ncase, it  has been  revealed from the evidences adduced that<br \/>\nat  the\t time  of  commission  of  the\tsaid  offences,\t the<br \/>\nappellant   did\t  not\tcompletely   lose   his\t  sense\t  of<br \/>\nunderstanding. When the deceased caught hold of him and told<br \/>\nthat he would be taken to the officers, he retorted that the<br \/>\ndeceased could\tdo that\t if he\twas alive then and so saying<br \/>\ninflicted khukri  blows on  him. Such  words and  acts\tonly<br \/>\ndemonstrate that  at the time of commission of the offences,<br \/>\nhe could  explain his  intended action with logic. Hence, it<br \/>\nis not\tnecessary to  consider the  probabilities which\t may<br \/>\nhappen with  a paranoia.  In the  facts of  the case, it has<br \/>\nbeen clearly  established that the accused was not incapable<br \/>\nto  understand\tthe  implication  of  his  acts.  Hence,  no<br \/>\ninterference is called for in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 Author: G Ray Bench: G.N. Ray, B.L. Hansaria PETITIONER: S.K. NAIR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/11\/1996 BENCH: G.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY,J. This appeal is [&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-197647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - 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\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-27T03:19:40+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T03:19:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1650,\"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\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\",\"name\":\"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T03:19:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - 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\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-27T03:19:40+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T03:19:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996"},"wordCount":1650,"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\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996","name":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T03:19:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-nair-vs-state-of-punjab-on-5-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.K. Nair vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 1996"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/197647","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=197647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197647\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}