{"id":200446,"date":"2003-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003"},"modified":"2017-07-10T03:28:48","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T21:58:48","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  547 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Punjab\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRamdev Singh\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tSexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful
\nintrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a\tfemale.  It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity  it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a
\ntraumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but
\nmore indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman
\ni.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity.
\nRape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime
\nagainst the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri
\nBodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty (AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 922), the
\nentire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis.
\nIt is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the
\nvictim’s most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to
\nLife contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in
\nshort the ‘Constitution’) The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal
\nwith cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such
\ncases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.  A socially sensitized
\njudge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime
\nagainst women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex
\nexceptions and provisos.\n<\/p>\n
      The State of Punjab questions acquittal of the respondent
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) who was charged for
\ncommission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).\n<\/p>\n
We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of
\nIPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences
\npunishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make
\nknown the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections
\n376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been
\ncommitted can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate
\nto printing or publication of judgment by High Court or Supreme Court.
\nBut keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization
\nor ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A
\nhas been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it
\nof this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should
\nnot be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as ‘victim’ in the
\njudgment. (See State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja<\/a> (2003 (8) Supreme 364) <\/p>\n
\tProsecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 1.10.1985 the mother of the victim PW-4 lodged information with
\nthe police that 17-18 days back the accused had committed rape on her
\ndaughter PW-7. According to the information lodged, the victim had told
\nher mother after coming from house of the accused that she was forcibly
\ndragged away by the accused while she was cleaning utensils and was
\nraped.  At the time of occurrence wife of the accused was absent and
\ntaking advantage of her absence, the accused committed the lustful act.
\nAs the father of the victim PW-5 was lying ill seriously they did not
\nthink it proper to inform him and when he recovered from illness, and
\nthe police had come to the village for investigating into some other
\ncase, information was lodged.  The victim-girl was sent for medical
\nexamination and she was examined by PW-2. After completion of
\ninvestigation, charge sheet was placed and accused faced trial.  He
\ndenied the accusations and pleaded false implication. It was stated that
\nthe mother of the victim had taken some money as advance for serving as
\nmaid servant and as she did not work and refused to refund the money, a
\nsuit was filed for recovery of the amount and, therefore, with a view to
\navoid payment false accusation has been made.  The trial Court placed
\nreliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the
\naccused of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced
\nhim to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with
\ndefault stipulation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, accused filed
\nCrl. A. No. 432-SB\/86 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  By the
\nimpugned judgment dated 2.12.1994 the High Court allowed the appeal and
\nset aside the conviction and consequently the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to High Court primarily four factors render the
\nprosecution version vulnerable. Firstly, there was unexplained delay in
\nlodging FIR. Secondly, the victim’s evidence did not inspire confidence
\nas there were exaggerations, and a friend to whom she claimed to have
\ntold about the incidence was not examined. Thirdly, the medical evidence
\nindicated that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse and,
\ntherefore, her version that she was raped by the accused is not
\nbelievable.  Fourthly, there was no evidence to show that the victim was
\nemployed as a maid servant in the house of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeal learned counsel for the State submitted
\nthat approach of the High Court is totally erroneous. In case of sexual
\nassaults the Court has to take note of the realities of life and should
\nnot enter into hyper technicalities. The delay was properly explained
\nand nothing was brought on record to raise any doubt about the reason
\nindicated by PWs.-4 and 5. Merely because respectable persons in the
\nlocality and police were not informed the prosecution should not have
\nbeen doubted. Had they informed police earlier there was no question of
\nexplaining the delay. The reasons for which there was delay have been
\nproperly explained.   The hypothetical medical evidence has been given
\nprimacy to cast doubt over the victim’s version.  When the defence
\nitself suggested that victim was engaged as maid servant, the High
\nCourt’s conclusion that there was no material to show about her
\nemployment as a maid servant is based on total misreading of the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tMerely because of doctor’s hypothetical and opinionative evidence
\nthat the victim was accustomed to sexual intercourse, prosecution
\nversion of rape was not to be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the accused supported the
\njudgment submitting that reasonings indicated by the High Court are on
\nterra firma, more particularly when the victim’s testimony is completely
\nunreliable because it is at great variance with the medical evidence.
\nResidually, it is submitted that the judgment is one of acquittal and
\nafter a long lapse of time the jurisdiction under Article 136 should not
\nbe exercised.\n<\/p>\n
\tDelay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula
\nfor doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the
\nground of delay in lodging the first information report.  Delay has the
\neffect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation
\nhas been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is
\nsatisfactory or not.  If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain
\nthe delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution
\nversion on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the
\nprosecution.  However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of
\nthe Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and
\ndiscarding the entire prosecution version, as done by the High Court in
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe evidence of PWs-4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly
\nexplained as to why the first information report was lodged after 17-18
\ndays.  The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses clearly show that
\nPW-5 was seriously ill and the family members did not want to create
\ntension in his mind when he was not physically well and waited for his
\nrecovery.  In spite of the lengthy cross-examination this aspect has not
\nbeen shaken by the defence. The view of the High Court that PW-4 should
\nhave told some respectable person or the father earlier to say least is
\na view which has no foundation and overlooks the very reason to shun or
\nopenly publicise it to avoid the ignominy involved in it. In a tradition
\nbound and conservative society, more particularly in a rural area, the
\nshame of sexual assault on a girl of about 14 years cannot be lost sight
\nof.  This down to earth reality has been lost sight of by the High
\nCourt.  The trial Court had rightly emphasized this aspect, but
\nunfortunately, the High Court took a contrary view irrationally.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther, the victim’s evidence has been discarded by holding that
\nit is at variance with the medical evidence.  The High Court has not
\nindicated as to in what way it is at variance with the medical evidence.
\nMere statement that according to doctor, victim’s vagina admitted two
\nfingers and she could on earlier occasions have had sexual intercourse
\nfive, ten or fifteen times rules out rape by accused once as alleged in
\nno way casts doubt on victim’s evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the respondent-accused pointed out that rape
\nas claimed by the victim was discounted by the evidence of PW-2, who did
\nnot find visible injury when she medically examined the victim.  In our
\nopinion the same is of no consequence.  The doctor examined the victim
\nafter about 3 weeks. That being so, the effect of the act on the
\nphysical form was practically obliterated. That is not denied by the
\ndoctor.  Merely because the friend of the victim was not examined that
\nalso cannot be a suspicious circumstance to throw suspicion on the
\nvictim’s evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court is
\nthe evidence of doctor PW-4 that there were signs of previous sexual
\nintercourse on the victim.   That cannot, by stretch of imagination, as
\nnoted above, be a ground to acquit an alleged rapist. Even assuming that
\nthe victim was previously accustomed sexual intercourse, that is not a
\ndeterminative question.  On the contrary, the question which was
\nrequired to be adjudicated was did the accused commit rape on the victim
\non the occasion complained of. Even if it is hypothetically accepted
\nthat the victim had lost her virginity earlier, it did not and cannot in
\nlaw give license to any person to rape her.  It is the accused who was
\non trial and not the victim. Even if the victim in a given case has been
\npromiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse
\nto submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because
\nshe is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by
\nanyone and everyone. Finally, if we may say as a last straw, is the
\nfallacy in High Court’s reasoning about lack of evidence relating to the
\nemployment of the victim as a maid servant.  The High Court completely
\noverlooked the fact that the suggestions given to witnesses, more
\nparticularly PWs-4, 5 and 7 that the accused or his wife had threatened
\nto put an end to the victim’s service as a maid servant because of her
\nimmoral character, or refusal to refund the amount taken as advance for
\nher employment as a maid servant.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a
\nvictim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.
\nThere is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without
\ncorroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal
\nthan an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the
\nphysical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as
\npsychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it
\ndifficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it
\nmay search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend
\nassurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as
\nunderstood in the context of an accomplice would do.
\n\tAs was noted by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan<\/a>
\n(2000 (3) Supreme 70)                             <\/p>\n
“Absence of injuries on the person of the
\nprosecutrix has weighed with the High Court for
\ninferring consent on the part of the prosecutrix. We
\nare not at all convinced. We have already noticed
\nthat the delay in medical examination of the
\nprosecutrix was occasioned by the factum of the
\nlodging of the FIR having been delayed for the
\nreasons which we have already discussed. The
\nprosecutrix was in her teens. The perpetrator of the
\ncrime was an able-bodied youth bustling with energy
\nand determined to fulfil his lust armed with a knife
\nin his hand and having succeeded in forcefully
\nremoving the victim to a secluded place where there
\nwas none around to help the prosecutrix in her
\ndefence. The injuries which the prosecutrix suffered
\nor might have suffered in defending herself and
\noffering resistance to the accused were abrasions or
\nbruises which would heal up in the ordinary course of
\nnature within 2 to 3 days of the incident. The
\nabsence of visible marks of injuries on the person of
\nthe prosecutrix on the date of her medical
\nexamination would not necessarily mean that she had
\nnot suffered any injuries or that she had offered no
\nresistance at the time of commission of the crime.\n<\/p>\n
Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix
\nis not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the
\nallegation or an evidence of consent on the part of
\nthe prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case.”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court was not justified in reversing the conviction of
\nthe respondent and recording the order of acquittal. An unmerited
\nacquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded
\nin making out a convincing case for recording a finding as to the
\naccused being guilty, the court should not lean in favour of acquittal
\nby giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by
\nresorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and giving benefit
\nthereof where none reasonably exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal
\njurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a
\nfinding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves
\nin the society being on the prowl for easy prey, more so when the
\nvictims of crime are helpless females or minor children. The courts have
\nto display a greater sense of responsibility and to be more sensitive
\nwhile dealing with charges of sexual assault on women, particularly of
\ntender age and children.\n<\/p>\n
Looked from any angle the High Court’s judgment does not stand
\nscrutiny and deserves to be set aside which we direct. The conviction as
\nrecorded by the trial Court and the sentence imposed by it are restored.
\nThe accused shall surrender forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if
\nany.  The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 547 of 1997 PETITIONER: State of Punjab RESPONDENT: Ramdev Singh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-200446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\" \/>\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 Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-09T21:58:48+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=\"12 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-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T21:58:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2494,\"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-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T21:58:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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 Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-09T21:58:48+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T21:58:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003"},"wordCount":2494,"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-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003","name":"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T21:58:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-ramdev-singh-on-17-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Ramdev Singh on 17 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/200446","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=200446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}