{"id":202516,"date":"1979-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979"},"modified":"2017-02-22T01:27:47","modified_gmt":"2017-02-21T19:57:47","slug":"dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","title":{"rendered":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 680, \t\t 1979 SCR (2)1134<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDILBAG SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nDESAI, D.A.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  680\t\t  1979 SCR  (2)1134\n 1979 SCC  (2) 103\n\n\nACT:\n     Sentence-Sentencing power\tunder Section  248(2) and s.\n235(2) of  the Criminal\t Procedure Code,  1973\t(Act  II  of\n1974)-Need for\tnon-institution alised\tsentencing and value\nof pre-sentencing investigation reports while exercising the\nright to  sentence-Guidelines to  be laid down-Purpose of s.\n360 of Criminal Procedure Code highlighted.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In the case of a trial before a court of session, under\ns.  235(2)  Criminal  Procedure\t Code  \"if  the\t accused  is\nconvicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance\nwith the  provisions of\t s. 360,  hear the  accused  on\t the\nquestion  of   sentence,  and  then  pass  sentence  on\t him\naccording to  law.\" Similarly,\tin  the\t case  of  trial  of\nwarrant cases  by Magistrates, under s. 248 (2) of the Code,\n\"where the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not\nproceed in  accordance with  the provisions  of s. 325 or s.\n360, he\t shall after  hearing the accused on the question of\nsentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.\"\n     Section 361  of the  Code mandates\t that \"where  in any\ncase, the court could have dealt with:-\n     (a) an  accused  person  under  s.\t 360  or  under\t the\nprovisions of  the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958 (Act XX\nof 1958) or;\n     (b) a  youthful offender  under the  Children Act, 1960\n(Act LX\t of 1960)  or any  other law  for the  time being in\nforce for  the\ttreatment,  training  or  rehabilitation  of\nyouthful offenders,  but has not done so, it shall record in\nits judgment,  the special  reasons for not having done so.\"\nThus, under  the Criminal  Procedure Code, 1973, recourse to\nthe provisions of s. 360 is a must.\n     In a  trial against  four persons charged by the Police\nwith  offences\tunder  ss.  302,  324,\t323  IPC,  including\nconstructive liability\tunder s.  34, two were, acquitted by\nthe trial  court and  two were\tconvicted. The appellant was\nsentenced to  rigorous imprisonment  for one year and a fine\nof Rs.\t200\/- for  causing simple injury to one Arjan Singh.\nHe was\theld vicariously  guilty under\tss. 324\/34  IPC\t and\nawarded two  years rigorous  imprisonment and  a fine of Rs.\n1000\/-. In  addition he\t was convicted under s. 323 IPC, for\ncausing hurt  to the  daughter of  the deceased\t and on this\ncount punished\twith R.I.  for one year together with a fine\nof Rs. 200\/-.\n     Releasing the appellant on probation, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1. Enacted law is guilty of inaction; because its\nobscure presence  on the  statute book escapes the vigilance\nof the\tBar. Where  even the  Court ignores what is vital to\nthe little  man the guarantee of sentencing legality becomes\na casualty. [1135H, 1136A]\n1135\n     2. To  jail an  accused is\t mechanical farewell  to the\nfiner sentencing  sensitivity of  the Judge  of salvaging  a\nredeemable man\tby non-institutionalised  treatment. If\t the\njudge has  before him  a complete  and accurate pre-sentence\ninvestigation  report\twhich  sets  forth  the\t conditions,\ncircumstances, background,  and surrounding  of the  accused\nand the\t circumstances underlying the offence which has been\ncommitted, the judge could then impose sentence with greater\nassurance that he has adopted the proper course. The purpose\nof s.  360 of  the Code is precisely this and the goal of s.\n235(2) is just this. [1138H, 1140B-C]\n     3. Sentencing  legality  is  violated  when  the  judge\nshirks.\t And   the  Bar\t  is  often  alien  to\tcorrectional\nalternatives and  concentrates its ammunition on culpability\nand extenuatory scaling down of imprisonment. [1189F]\n     4. Calling pre-sentence investigation reports, bestowal\nof intelligent\tcare on the choice between institutional and\nnon-institutional disposition  like  probation,\t conditional\nrelease\t and  such  community  methods\tmust  form  part  of\ninnovative sentences.  But this\t should be  based on careful\nstudy of  the convict  and his\tpotentiality for reform; not\nguess-work, nor insensitive assessments. [1137B-E]\n     Williams v.  New York,  337 U.S.  241, 249; quoted with\napproval.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n313 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 22-3-78  of the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 189\/75.\n<\/p>\n
     A. S. Sohal and S. K. Jain for the Appellant.
\n     Hardev Singh for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KRISHNA IYER,  J. Every  litigative appeal has a docket
\nnumber but  beneath the\t paper lurks  a human  factor, often
\nforgotten in the forensic pugilists but now and then brought
\nto the fore, as in this criminal appeal limited to the issue
\nof appropriate sentence.\n<\/p>\n
     Surely, ‘the  law\tmust  keep  its\t promises.’  Justice
\nHolmes expressed  the obvious  when he\tsaid this,  but\t the
\nbreach of  promise by the law on delivering criminal justice
\nis daily  experience, from  police arrest  to prison trauma.
\nThe focus  in this case is on the sentencing alternatives in
\nthe Criminal  Procedure Code;  and the\tgrievance pressed by
\ncounsel, when  traditional grounds on the merits failed, was
\nthat the  compassion  of  s.  360  professionally  suffering
\nbenign neglect,\t be kindled  and he be released. Enacted law
\nis guilty  of inaction,\t because its obscure presence on the
\nstatute book  escapes the  vigilance of\t the Bar. Where even
\nthe court  ignores what\t is vital  to  the  little  man\t the
\nguarantee of
\n1136<\/span>
\nsentencing legality  becomes a\tcasualty. This\tcase  is  an
\ninstance in point.\n<\/p>\n
     Now the  brief story  which enlivens  the\t‘sentencing’
\nsubmissions. Four  villagers of\t rural Punjab,\tof whom\t the
\nappellant is  one, set\tupon Arjan  Singh, a small official,
\nwhile on his way back home. The sound and fury of the attack
\nwith sticks  brought out  the ill-starred,  innocent Srimati
\nRakhi, Arjan  Singh’s brother’s\t wife. Her daughter too came
\nto the\tspot attracted\tby the\tfracas. Arjan Singh received
\nblows, being  the angry\t target of  the assailants. But poor
\nRakhi, who  came in accidentally, was hit on the head with a
\ntakua by  Jagir Singh,\tone of\tthe accused.  She eventually
\ndied; and  her daughter\t and Arjan  Singh were\thurt by\t the
\nbeating.\n<\/p>\n
     Four persons  were charged\t by the police with offences
\nunder s.  302, 324  and 323  I.P.C.  including\tconstructive
\nliability under\t s. 34.\t Two of\t them were  acquitted by the
\ntrial court and the other two were convicted but appealed to
\nthe High  Court. The  man who  dealt the fatal cut was Jagir
\nSingh. His  conviction under s. 302 I.P.C. and award of life
\nimprisonment by\t the Sessions  Court was  converted into one
\nunder s.  304 Part  1, I.P.C. with a consequential reduction
\nof sentence  to\t seven\tyears’\trigorous  imprisonment.\t His
\nconviction on certain other counts was maintained but we are
\nnot concerned  with him\t at all, since the appellant in this
\nCourt is the other accused Dilbag Singh. His role was lesser
\nand related  to causing\t simple injury\tto Arjan  Singh\t for
\nwhich he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year
\nand a  fine of\tRs. 200\/-.  He was  held vicariously  guilty
\nunder ss.  324\/34 I.P.C.  and awarded  two  years’  rigorous
\nimprisonment and  a fine  of Rs.  1000\/-. In addition he was
\nconvicted under\t s. 323\t I.P.C.\t for  causing  hurt  to\t the
\ndaughter of  the deceased  and on  this count  punished with
\nR.I. for one year together with a fine of Rs. 200\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     Having declined  leave on\tthe question  of  guilt,  we
\nconfine our attention to the contentions on the sentence. We
\nproceed on  the footing of the facts found and ask ourselves
\nwhether any  basic flaw\t in  sentencing\t technology  affords
\nappellate  intervention\t  and  re-designing  of\t reformatory
\ntreatment in  the conspectus of circumstances present in the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
     The courts\t in our country consult the punitive tariffs
\nprescribed in  the Penal  Code, consult\t the  prison  period
\nawarded in  practice for  such offences\t and  with  marginal
\nvariations mechanise  the  process.  Judged  by\t that  test,
\nconviction  under  s.  324  I.P.C.  read  with\ts.  34\tplus
\nsubstantive guilt  under s.  323 I.P.C.\t is visited with two
\nyears for  the former  and one year R.I. especially when the
\nincident has  ended in\tdeath.\tBut  penal  humanitarianism,
\nstrategies of non-institutional rehabilitation and
\n1137<\/span>
\na complex  of other  considerations in\tmaking an offender a
\nnon-offender have  revolutionized the  judicial repertory in
\nre-socializing the  criminal. The sentence hearing for which
\nthe Criminal  Procedure Code, 1973 provides in s. 248(2) and
\ns. 235(2)  has hardly  received the  serious concern  of the
\nCourts\tdespite\t  the  International   Probation  Year\t and
\ntherapeutic  accent   in  penological  literature.  ‘If\t the
\ncriminal law  as a whole is the Cinderella of jurisprudence,
\nthen the  law of  sentencing  is  Cinderella’s\tillegitimate
\nbaby’.\tPre-sentence   investigation  reports,\tbestowal  of
\nintelligent care on the choice between institutional and non
\ninstitutional  disposition   and  habitual  neglect  of\t new
\navenues open to the court have constrained us to grant leave
\nin the\tcase  so  that\tguidelines  may\t be  laid  down\t and
\nprobation and  community-oriented methods lying in the legal
\nlimbs may  be re-activated. Our prisons are overcrowded, our
\nprisoners are  subjected to  iatrogenic\t incarceration,\t our
\npenal drills  are self-defeatingly  callous to\tcorrectional
\nmeasures and  our jail\tbudgets bulge without countervailing
\ncommunity benefits  because  the  Bench\t and  the  Bar\thave
\ndismissed as  below judicial  visibility  such\tpatterns  as
\nprobation, conditional release. The time has come for Courts
\nto abandon  the Monroe Doctrine towards penology and concern
\nitself with innovative sentences.\n<\/p>\n
     But this  involves careful study of the convict and his
\npotentiality for  reform,  not\tguess-work  nor\t insensitive
\nassessments. Therefore, we directed, right at the start, the
\nChief Probation\t Officer, Punjab,  to make  a report to this
\nCourt “as  to the  social circumstances\t and other  relevant
\nfactors bearing\t on the\t consideration of eligibility of the
\npetitioner to  probation.” That report has been received and
\nits contents  indicate\tcompetent  advertence  to  pertinent
\ncriteria which we may briefly sum up.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  is 32 years old. His behavioral attitude
\nis stated to be “obedient and law-respecting in nature”. The
\nofficer goes  on to  state that\t the prisoner’s character is
\nfairly good,  that he  is upright,  alert and  interested in
\nrural games.  Of course,  he seems  to be  wrestler  of\t the
\nlocality which\tis good\t if it\tis practised  as a  game but
\ndangerous if  he exercises  his muscles\t on  other  people’s
\nflesh. More  importantly are the social influences that bear
\nupon restraint\tand good behaviour. He is a petty farmer who
\nleft school in his teens, has ten acres of land belonging to
\nthe joint  family of  himself  and  five  brothers  and\t the
\nmother. Being  a cultivator  and living\t in the joint family
\ncircumstances the  officer finds  no adverse remarks against
\nhim in the locality. On the other hand, the report refers to
\nhis great  respect for\tthe former  Sarpanch of the village.
\nHis family  circumstances evoke\t commiseration\tbecause\t his
\nfather is  dead having\tbeen murdered in 1960. His mother is
\nalive
\n1138<\/span>
\nand has to be maintained by himself and his two brothers who
\nare truck  drivers and\tthe third  a jawan.  He has  his own
\nnuclear family\tto maintain  with  a  young  wife  and\tfour
\nchildren. A  pitiable factor  is that  his elder daughter is
\nparalytic from\tbirth. His  social position  shows  that  he
\nbelongs\t to   a\t lower\t middle\t class\t family,  lives\t  by
\nagriculture, loves  his mother\tand brothers  and has earned
\nthe  good-will\t of  his   neighbours  who  think  that\t the
\noccurrence was\tinduced by  an\tirritating  land  issue\t and
\ntemporary intoxication.\t A Sense of remorse has overcome him
\naccording to  the Probation  Officer who  says that  he is a
\nfirst offender\tand not\t a recidivist. It is a painful fact,
\nas noted  in the report that this criminal case has cost him
\na tidy sum, loss of prestige and even family separation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  unrefined English\tof the\tProbation Officer we
\nmay summarise his assessment of the offender:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It was  met of  an  accident\t as  offender-client
\n     Dilbagh Singh  seems to be law abiding and God fearing.
\n     His one weakness is wine and that is the route cause of
\n     the  present   diviation,\totherwise   on\t the   whole
\n     offender’s behaviour  is  normal  and  adjustable.\t The
\n     offender is in curable stage as crime has not gone deep
\n     into him.\tHe can\tbe adjustable  amicably\t within\t his
\n     normal and\t natural environmental\tfactors. The  client
\n     can easily\t be reformed  as he  is neither professional
\n     criminal  nor   exhibits\tany   tendency\t to   future
\n     deviation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  social   milieu,  the  domestic  responsibilities,\t the
\nrespect for  the  former  Sarpanch  he\tshows,\tthe  general
\ngoodwill he commands are plus points. The tragic fact of his
\nfather’s murder\t and the  running misfortune  of  his  young
\ndaughter’s paralysed  limbs are sour facets of his life. The
\ncircumstance that  he is gainfully employed as agriculturist
\nand his\t brothers, though  in  diverse\toccupations,  remain
\njoint family  members, are  hopeful factors.  The aggressive
\nepisode which  led to  his conviction  was  induced  by\t the
\ncompany of  his cousin\twho serves a seven year sentence and
\nthe inebriation\t due to drinking habit. This simple villager
\nresponsible and\t gentle, sad  and  burdened,  repentant\t and
\ndrained of  his little\twealth by  the criminal\t case, has a
\nlong way  to go\t in life  being in  his early  thirtys.\t The
\ndrinks vice was the minus point. Many a peaceable person, on
\nslight\tirritation,   suffers  bellicose  switch-over  under
\nalcoholic consumption.\n<\/p>\n
     How does  judicial discretion  operate in\tthis skew of
\ncircumstances? To  jail him  is mechanical  farewell to\t the
\nfiner sentencing  sensitivity of  the judge  of salvaging  a
\nredeemable man by non-institutionalised treatment. The human
\nconsequences of the confinement process here will
\n1139<\/span>
\nbe no  good to\tsociety and  much injury  to  the  miserable
\nfamily and,  above all,\t hardening  a  young  man  into\t bad
\nbehaviour, with\t prestige  punctured,  family  injured,\t and
\nsociety ill-served.  Nor was  the crime\t such, so far as his
\npart  was   involved,\tas   to\t  deserve   long   deterrent
\nincarceration.\tOur   prison  system,\tuntil\thumane\t and
\npurposeful reforms pervades, surely injures, never improves.
\nPrison justice has promises to keep, and ethological changes
\ngeared to curative goals are still alien-from dress and bed,
\nrefusal of  frequent parole  and  insistence  of  mechanical
\nchores, bonded\tlabour, nocturnal tensions, and no scheme to
\nreform and many traditions to repress-such is the zoological
\ninstitutional realism  and rehabilitative  bankruptcy  which
\ninflict social\tand financial costs upon the State.(1) It is
\nwasted\tsadism\tto  lug\t this  man  into  counter-productive
\nimprisonment for one year.\n<\/p>\n
     Long years\t ago, Franklin\tD. Roosevelt,  in a forward-
\nlooking speech on John Day, said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If the  criminal’s past history gives good reason
\n     to believe\t that he  is not  of the  naturally criminal
\n     type, that he is capable of real reform and of becoming
\n     a useful  citizen, there  is no  doubt that  probation,
\n     viewed from  the selfish  standpoint of  protection  to
\n     society alone,  is the  most efficient  method that  we
\n     have. And\tyet it\tis the\tleast understood,  the least
\n     developed, the  least appreciated of all our efforts to
\n     rid society of the criminal.”(2)
\n     The appellant  has served\ta substantial  part  of\t his
\nsentence in jail because of judicial innocence of the normae
\nin the\tarea of non-institutional disposition. It is easy to
\nimprison,  hard\t  to  individualise  punishment.  Sentencing
\nlegality is  violated when  the judge shirks. And the Bar is
\noften alien  to correctional  alternatives and\tconcentrates
\nits ammunition\ton culpability\tand extenuatory scaling down
\nof imprisonment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The observations  of the United States Supreme Court in
\nWilliams v.  New York  (337 U.S.  241, 249)  lay  the  right
\nstress on pre-sentence reports:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “have been  given a  high value  by  conscientious
\n     judges  who  want\tto  sentence  persons  on  the\tbest
\n     available information  rather than\t on  guess-work\t and
\n     inadequate infor-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1140<\/span><\/p>\n
     mation. To\t deprive sentencing  judges of\tthis kind of
\n     information   would    undermine\tmodern\t penological
\n     procedural policies  that have  been cautiously adopted
\n     throughout the  nation after  careful consideration and
\n     experimentation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Judge F. Rayan Duffy has written:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “If the  judge  has  before  him  a  complete\t and
\n     accurate pre-sentence  investigation report  which sets
\n     forth the\tconditions, circumstances,  background,\t and
\n     surroundings of  the defendant,  and the  circumstances
\n     underlying the  offense which  has been  committed, the
\n     judge can\tthen impose  sentence with greater assurance
\n     that he  has adopted  the proper  course. He  can do so
\n     with much greater peace of mind.”(1)
\n     The purpose  of s.\t 360 of\t the Code is precisely this;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
the goal  of s.\t 235(2) is  just this. And yet, the exacting
\nart is more honoured in the breach than in the observance if
\nwe many\t wrongly use  a Shakespearean  passage to drive home
\nour point.  We stress the legal position so that subordinate
\ncourts may  not treat  conviction as  the terminal point but
\nthe end of one chapter. We are mindful of the complexity and
\nremove the  impression that  easy resort to s. 360 is right.
\nNo; it is wrong. Two quotes set the record straight.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Imprisonment is the appropriate sentence when the
\n     offender must  be isolated\t from the community in order
\n     to protect\t society or  if he can learn to readjust his
\n     attitudes and  patterns of\t behaviour only in a closely
\n     controlled environment.”(2)
\n\t  “The consequences of a sentence are of the highest
\n     order. If\ttoo short  or of  the  wrong  type,  it\t can
\n     deprive the  law of its effectiveness and result in the
\n     premature release\tof  a  dangerous  criminal.  If\t too
\n     severe or\timproperly conceived,  it can  reinforce the
\n     criminal tendencies  of the defendant and lead to a new
\n     offence by one who otherwise might not have offended so
\n     seriously again.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The decision\twhich is  presented at sentencing is
\n     also enormously  complex. It properly is concerned, and
\n     often predominantly,  with\t the  future  which  can  be
\n     predicted for  the particular offender. But any single-
\n     valued  approach\tto  sentencing\t is  misdirected.  A
\n     sentence which is not in some
\n1141<\/span>
\n     fashion  limited  in  accordance  with  the  particular
\n     offence can lead to a system of incomparable brutality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Per contra,  a sentence  or pattern  of sentence  which
\n     fails to take due account of the gravity of the offence
\n     can seriously undermine respect for law.”(1)
\n     In this  case, after  perusal  of\tthe  report  of\t the
\nProbation Officer,  counsel for the State, Sri Hardev Singh,
\nwith fair  candour and\tshared correctness,  consented to  a
\nrelease of the prisoner under S. 360. We agree. But one fact
\nneeds emphasis. The close nexus between violence and alcohol
\nis a  call to  the State  in every criminal investigation to
\nidentify the  role of  alcohol\tin  the\t commission  of\t the
\noffence and  in every  prisoner’s treatment  to provide\t for
\nanti-alcoholic therapy.\t To fail  here is vicarious guilt of
\nthe State  to Society.\tWe direct  release of  the appellant
\nforthwith. He  will enter into a bond before the trial court
\ntogether with  Shri Dilbag Singh S\/o Babu Singh as surety in
\nthe amount  of Rs. 1000\/- within two weeks of his release to
\nkeep the  peace, be of good behaviour, to abjure alcohol and
\nnot to\tcommit offence\tfor a  period of  three years and to
\nappear and receive sentence, if called upon in the meantime.
\nThe appeal  is allowed\twith this  direction  which  is\t the
\nQ.E.D. of sentencing justice.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n1142<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 680, 1979 SCR (2)1134 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: DILBAG SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1979 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A. SEN, A.P. (J) CITATION: 1979 AIR 680 1979 […]<\/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-202516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - 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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-21T19:57:47+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T19:57:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\"},\"wordCount\":2502,\"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\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\",\"name\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T19:57:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - 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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-21T19:57:47+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979","datePublished":"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T19:57:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979"},"wordCount":2502,"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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979","name":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T19:57:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-25-january-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1979"}]},{"@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\/202516","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=202516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}