{"id":202791,"date":"1951-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951"},"modified":"2016-10-23T06:27:39","modified_gmt":"2016-10-23T00:57:39","slug":"surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","title":{"rendered":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 52, \t\t 1952 SCR 193<\/div>\n
Author: S Fazal Ali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazal Ali, Saiyid<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/12\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nBENCH:\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nBOSE, VIVIAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR   52\t\t  1952 SCR  193\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1953 SC 459\t (10)\n R\t    1954 SC 645\t (2)\n R\t    1955 SC 585\t (4)\n R\t    1955 SC 807\t (5)\n F\t    1956 SC 217\t (2,34)\n R\t    1956 SC 425\t (5)\n R\t    1956 SC 643\t (39)\n R\t    1957 SC 216\t (12)\n R\t    1957 SC 589\t (16)\n RF\t    1961 SC 715\t (7)\n RF\t    1962 SC 439\t (8)\n RF\t    1963 SC 200\t (17)\n F\t    1972 SC 116\t (22)\n R\t    1973 SC2622\t (7)\n F\t    1974 SC 606\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s.\t 417--Appeal\nagainst acquittal--Interference--Guiding principle.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    It is well settled that in an appeal under s. 417 of the\nCriminal  Procedure Code, the High Court has full  power  to\nreview\tthe evidence upon which the order of  acquittal\t was\nfounded. But it is equally well settled that the presumption\nof  innocence  of the accused is further reinforced  by\t his\nacquittal  by the trial Court and the findings of the  trial\nCourt  which had the advantage of seeing the  witnesses\t and\nhearing\t their evidence can be reversed only for  very\tsub-\nstantial and compelling reasons.\n194\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION:\tCriminal Appeal\t No.
\n16  of 1950.  Appeal by special leave from the judgment\t and
\norder  dated 8th May, 1947, of the High Court of  Judicature
\nat Allahabad (Sankar Saran and Akbar Hussain JJ.) in  Crimi-
\nnal Appeal No. 80 of 1946.\n<\/p>\n
    S.P. Sinha (G.C. Mathur, with him), for the appellant.
\nK.B. Asthana, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1951. December 20.\tThe Judgment of the Court was deliv-
\nered by
\nFAZL  ALl  J.–This is an appeal against a judgment  of\t the
\nHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversing the decision
\nof  the Sessions Judge of Aligarh in a criminal\t case.\t The
\nappellants were tried by the Sessions Judge on charges under
\nsection 302 read with section 149, section 148, sections 325
\nand 326 read with section 149, and section 201 of the Indian
\nPenal  Code,  but were acquitted.  On appeal  by  the  State
\nGovernment,  the  High Court reversed the  Sessions  Judge’s
\ndecision, and convicted the appellants and sentenced them to
\ntransportation for life under section 302 read with  section
\n149, to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under sections 325
\nand  326 read with section 149, and to two  years’  rigorous
\nimprisonment under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, all
\nthe sentences being made to run concurrently. The appellants
\nthereafter  applied to the Privy Council for special  leave,
\nwhich was granted on the 28th October, 1947.
\n    The\t facts which were put before the court on behalf  of
\nthe prosecution may be briefly stated as follows. There is a
\nplot No. 518 in Nagaria Patti Chaharum, village Shahgarh  in
\nthe district of Aligarh which is about 30 bighas in area and
\nis known as the “teesa” field. This plot was the “sir”\tland
\nof several landlords including Mst. Bhagwati Kuer and  Ratan
\nSingh and had been let out  to\tcertain tenants.   In  1944,
\nMst. Bhagwati Kuer, Ratan Singh and their co-sharers filed a
\nsuit for the ejectment of the tenants, and the
\n195<\/span>
\nsuit was decreed. On the 7th June, 1945, possession over the
\nplot was delivered by the Amin to Surajpal Singh, the  first
\nappellant,  who was the mukhtar-i-Am of Mst. Bhagwati  Kuer.
\nIt  was contended on behalf of Surajpal Singh that  he\ttook
\npossession  on\tbehalf of all the  co-sharers,\tbut  certain
\nstatements  made by Ratan Singh in his evidence do not\tsup-
\nport this contention.  However that may be, it appears\tthat
\non  the 17th June, 1945, Ratan Singh reported to the  police
\nthat  he  had  sent his labourers to  irrigate\tthe  “teesa”
\nfield, and while they were irrigating it Surajpal Singh\t and
\ncertain other persons came and tried to stop the  irrigation
\nand damaged the ploughs of Ratan Singh. On the 18th June, at
\nabout 7 A.M., the occurrence which is the subject-matter  of
\nthe present trial took place. The prosecution version of the
\noccurrence  was\t that  while Ratan  Singh’s  labourers\twere
\nworking\t in  the field under the supervision of\t one  Behari
\nSingh,\tthe  appellants with many other persons\t came  armed
\nwith guns, spears and lathis, and some of the members of the
\nappellants’ party entered the field, cut off the nosestrings
\nof the bullocks and abused and assaulted the labourers, most
\nof  whom  ran away. Thereupon, Deva Sukh, who was  there  to
\nsupply water to the labourers, protested and was beaten with
\nlathis.\t  At that point of time, Behari Singh and 10  to  15
\npersons\t came  and  fight took place  between  the  parties.
\nDuring\tthe  fight,  one of the\t accused  persons,  Rajendra
\nSingh,\ta  young lad, fired his gun twice in  the  air,\t and
\nthereafter  Surajpal Singh took the gun from him  and  fired
\ntwo  shots hitting Nawab Mewati, who  died  instantaneously,
\nand  Behari  Singh, who died later in the day.\tThree  other
\npersons,  Zorawar, Rajpal and Lakhan also received  gun-shot
\ninjuries.   Sometime  later, Surajpal Singh along  with\t the
\nother three appellants came to the spot and removed the dead
\nbody  of Nawab in a cart.  The body was thrown into a  river
\nand  was recovered on the 20th June, 1945. After  investiga-
\ntion  25 persons including the appellants were sent  up\t for
\ntrial.\t   After hearing the evidence in the case, the\tSes-
\nsions Judge delivered judgment on the 20th February, 1946.\n<\/p>\n
196<\/span><\/p>\n
He  held  that the “teesa” field was in\t the  possession  of
\nSurajpal Singh, that Behari Singh and Ratan Singh’s men were
\naggressors  and\t wished to take forcible possession  of\t the
\nfield, that when resisted they had attacked the\t appellants’
\nparty,\tthat  the person who fired the gun had\tdone  so  in
\nself-defence and not with a view to killing Behari Singh and
\nNawab Mewati, and that the evidence adduced by the  prosecu-
\ntion was so unsatisfactory that it was unsafe to convict the
\naccused upon it. As to the charge of concealing evidence  of
\nthe  offence  of murder by the removal of the dead  body  of
\nNawab,\tthe  Sessions Judge expressed the  opinion  that  in
\norder  to convict a person on that charge it must be  proved
\nthat  the  offence,  the evidence of which  the\t accused  is
\nalleged\t to have caused to disappear had actually been\tcom-
\nmitted,\t but since in the present case the charge of  murder
\nwas not proved the accused could not be convicted for having
\ncaused\tdisappearance  of evidence connected  with  it.\t The
\nJudge  also  held  that the evidence  being  unreliable\t the
\ncharge\tunder section 201 of the Indian Penal Code  had\t not
\nbeen established beyond reasonable doubt.
\n    The\t High Court delivered its judgment on the  8th\tMay,
\n1947, allowing the appeal of the State Government.   Shortly
\nstated, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was that
\nRatan Singh had as much right to the possession of the field
\nas  Bhagwati  Kuer, that both parties were  trying  to\ttake
\nexclusive  possession of the field, that both  parties\twere
\nprepared  for  all contingencies to  vindicate\tand  enforce
\ntheir  rights,\tand hence the question\tof   possession\t was
\nwholly\timmaterial and no right of private defence could  be
\nsuccessfully pleaded by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    A  perusal\tof the two judgments before  us\t shows\tthat
\nwhile the Sessions Judge took great pains to discuss all the
\nimportant  aspects of the case and to record his opinion  on
\nevery  material point, the learned Judges of the High  Court
\nhave  reversed\this  decision without  displacing  the\tvery
\nsubstantial  reasons given by him in support of his  conclu-
\nsion.\tThe difference in the treatment of the case  by\t the
\ntwo courts below
\n197<\/span>
\nis particularly noticeable in the manner in which they\thave
\ndealt with the prosecution evidence.  We find that while the
\nSessions  Judge\t took up the evidence of  each\twitness\t and
\nrecorded  his finding with regard to his  credibility  after
\ndiscussing  the minutest details of the evidence,  all\tthat
\nthe  learned Judges of the High Court have to say about\t the
\nprosecution evidence as a whole is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
    “In\t Prag Dat’s case their Lordships observed: usual  in
\ncases  of  this kind the police have found it  difficult  to
\nsecure independent testimony of what did take place.   Those
\nof  the\t villagers  who were present and  looking  on  would
\nprobably by sympathy and bias be so attached to one or other
\nof  the disputing parties that it would be hopeless  to\t get
\ndisinterested and reliable evidence from them.’
\n    This  difficulty the police find in most riot cases\t and
\nthis  case is not free from it.\t But as in Prag Dat’s  case,
\nin this case there are four witnesses, viz., Deo Sukh,\tRori
\nSingh,\tRam Singh, and Ratan Singh, who could  be  characte-
\nrised as independent witnesses and they support the case for
\nthe prosecution, in the main. In our judgment their testimo-
\nny  is\ton the whole worthy of credence\t and  sufficient  to
\njustify the conviction of the respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
    In view of the summary treatment of the evidence by\t the
\nHigh Court, we had to read the evidence adduced in the\tcase
\nwith great care, and what we find is that the four  witness-
\nes, whose evidence has been accepted by the High Court,\t are
\njust  the  persons against whom very serious  criticism\t was
\noffered\t by the Sessions Judge.\t Of these  witnesses,  Ratan
\nSingh not being an eye-witness may be ruled out.  As to\t the
\nremaining  witnesses, we are on the whole inclined to  agree
\nwith the view expressed by the Sessions Judge. According  to
\nthe  Sessions  Judge,  the manner in  which  Deva  Sukh\t was
\nbrought into the picture and the circumstances attendant  on
\nhis  evidence,\tfurnish strong reasons.\t for  rejecting\t the
\nprosecution  version.  What has been held is that the  whole
\ncase of the prosecution
\n26<\/span>
\n198<\/span>
\nthat  Deva Sukh had received injuries in the course  of\t the
\nalleged occurrence was false and his injuries “were made  up
\nso as to create evidence of private defence” to be  utilized
\nby  the\t prosecution  to meet the charge  of  having  caused
\ninjuries  to the members of the appellants’ party.   It\t has
\nbeen  established that at least four persons on the side  of
\nthe accused had received injuries.  Mahindarpal had received
\nno less than 16 injuries, and his condition was serious\t for
\nsome  time.  Karan Singh had 12 injuries, one of  which\t was
\ngrievous.  Hari\t Singh had received 7 injuries\tincluding  a
\ngrievous  injury,  and\tNikka Singh also  was  injured,\t his
\ninjury having been noticed by the investigating\t sub-inspec-
\ntor.\n<\/p>\n
    In the prosecution evidence, it was stated that many  of
\nthe  accused  persons were armed with lathis  and  had\tused
\nthem, and it would be strange if it was not proved that\t any
\nof  the persons on their side had any injuries\tattributable
\nto  lathis.  It has been established that the  four  injured
\npersons\t of Ratan Singh’s party, viz., Rajpal Singh,  Lakhan
\nSingh,\tBehari\tSingh and Zorawar Singh, had  only  gun-shot
\nwounds.\t A serious question which arises in this case is  at
\nwhat  stage  the gun was used, and whether it  was  used  in
\nself-defence after the members of the appellants’ party were
\nassaulted  with lathis or it was used before they  were\t as-
\nsaulted.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t prosecution witnesses had to admit that at first  a
\ngun  was fired twice in the air and then the  actual  firing
\ntook place.  This version of the firing lends support to the
\ndefence\t story that the gun was fired in  self-defence\twhen
\nRatan  Singh’s men attacked members of the accused’s  party.
\nThe  Sessions Judge has expressed the view that in order  to
\nmeet  the defence case the prosecution introduced the  story
\nof Deva Sukh having been assaulted with a lathi in the first
\ninstance so as to make the appellants’ party the aggressors,
\nit being the prosecution case that Behari Singh and his\t men
\nhad used lathis in order to defend themselves.\tIn order  to
\nresolve the conflict in the cases of the parties and to\t get
\nat the true picture, the
\n199<\/span>
\nSessions  Judge went very minutely into the question  as  to
\nwhether\t there\twas  trustworthy evidence  about  Deva\tSukh
\nhaving\treceived  any injury at all in the  occurrence.\t  It
\nseems  to  us that there is a formidable  array\t of  circum-
\nstances to support the conclusion ultimately reached by\t the
\nSessions  Judge.  It appears that in the  first\t information
\nreport there is no reference to Deva Sukh or to the injuries
\nsaid  to have been received by him. The Sessions  Judge\t has
\npointed\t out that there was a considerable interval of\ttime
\nbetween the occurrence and the lodging of the first informa-
\ntion  report, and therefore it is surprising that  the\tmost
\nimportant  incident of the occurrence and the name  of\t the
\nmost important witness was omitted in the report. Again,  no
\nreference  was made to Deva Sukh or to his injuries  in\t the
\ndying declaration of Behari Singh which was recorded by\t one
\nDr.  Shankar  Deo, and also in that of\tLakhan\tSingh.\t The
\nSessions Judge has further pointed out that the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses,  Chokha,  Prempal, Cheta and Gangola\t Singh,\t who
\nwere examined by the investigating officer on the 18th June,
\ndid  not  also refer to Deva Sukh.  The\t investigating\tsub-
\ninspector was informed of the injuries on Deva Sukh and\t his
\npresence at the time of the occurrence for the first time on
\nthe  19th  June, 1945, and Deva Sukh’s explanation  for\t not
\nappearing before him at the earliest opportunity was that he
\nwas  frightened and had concealed himself in his  house\t for
\nabout two days and had directed his relations not to  inform
\nthe  police  of his presence.  He also stated  that  on\t his
\narrival in his house after the occurrence he did not  inform
\nhis  relations of what had happened.  Some of these  matters
\nmight  have  been overlooked if there  had  been  convincing
\nevidence about his having actually received injuries, but we
\nare satisfied that such evidence as is before us is extreme-
\nly  unsatisfactory  and suspicious and\twe  entertain  grave
\ndoubts as to whether Deva Sukh received any injuries at all.
\n    Dr. Shanker Deo, who examined Deva Sukh,  is a   retired
\nSub-Assistant  Surgeon\tpractising  in Kauiraganj, which  is
\nnot far from village Shahgarh.\n<\/p>\n
200<\/span><\/p>\n
He admits that he had known Ratan Singh since his childhood,
\nand when he was a child he used to be taught at the house of
\nRatan  Singh by a teacher employed by Ratan  Singh’s  uncle.
\nHe has stated that Deva Sukh had two bruises across the back
\nof  the\t middle\t of the left forearm, and one  of  them\t was
\ngrievous since the left ulna was fractured. He further\tsays
\nthat at the time of examination he did charge fees from Deva
\nSukh, that he was brought to him three days after the  other
\ninjured persons, that when the latter group of persons\tcame
\nto him none of them told him that there was one more injured
\nperson to be examined, and that Deva Sukh was brought to him
\nby  Ratan Singh’s servant.  There  are\tunsatisfactory\tfea-
\ntures  in  the\tevidence of this doctor\t relating  to  other
\nmatters which need not be referred to, but what is  somewhat
\nremarkable is that though there is a District Board Hospital
\nat Jalali about four miles from Kauirganj, Deva Sukh did not
\nobtain\tan injury certificate from the doctor in  charge  of
\nthat hospital. Deva Sukh says that he did go to that  hospi-
\ntal  to have his injuries attended to, but there is no\tevi-
\ndence to corroborate this.  These facts as well as a  number
\nof  other facts relied upon by the Sessions Judge do  go  to
\nsupport his theory, and once it is held that the prosecution
\nhas to rely on fabricated evidence, it throws doubts on\t the
\nentire case.\n<\/p>\n
    From the record, it appears that Surajpal Singh was\t the
\nperson who had been taking an active interest in the  eject-
\nment suit, and he was admittedly spending money. Ratan Singh
\nsays  that he had also paid money to Surajpal Singh  towards
\nthe  expenditure,  but this is not probable because  he\t and
\nSurajpal had been on bad terms.\t It is admitted that  Suraj-
\npal  is the person to whom the Amin gave possession  of\t the
\nland,  but in spite of this fact, Ratan Singh’s men  started
\noperations  on the land ignoring Bhagwati Kuer, which  Ratan
\nSingh  had no right to do, even assuming that the  land\t was
\njoint  property.  If Behari Singh and the other men sent  by
\nRatan Singh were trying to take exclusive possession of\t the
\nland and had started
\n201<\/span>
\noperations  thereon, Surajpal Singh had every right to\tpro-
\ntest,  and if his men were beaten first, of which there\t are
\nstrong\tindications in the case, he was entitled ‘ to  repel
\nthe  attack  in exercise of the right  of  private  defence.
\nThat  Ratan  Singh  had\t made  ample  preparations   through
\nBehari\tSingh  is  quite  clear. Admittedly,  there  were  a
\nnumber of persons armed with lathis present at the scene  on
\nhis  behalf  including outsiders like Nawab Mewati,  who  is
\nsaid to have been a well-known fighter, Zorawar and others.
\n    As regards the remaining two witnesses, to whom the High
\nCourt has made reference, viz., Rori Singh and Pransukh,  it
\nseems to us that the High Court has overlooked the  comments
\nmade  by  the Sessions Judge upon their\t evidence,  some  of
\nwhich  are of considerable force.  What has impressed us  is
\nthat  they were not  independent  witnesses  and  were\t not
\nmentioned  in the first information report as  witnesses  to
\nthe occurrence, and they were examined by the  sub-inspector
\nas  late as the 20th and 21st June, 1945. After reading\t the
\ntwo  judgments,\t we  see no reason why the  opinion  of\t the
\nSessions Judge regarding these witnesses should not  receive
\nthe weight which should normally be attached to that of\t the
\ntrial court.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis well-established that in an appeal under  section
\n417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has\tfull
\npower to review the evidence upon which the order of acquit-
\ntal  was  founded, but it is equally well-settled  that\t the
\npresumption  of\t innocence of the accused is  further  rein-
\nforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings
\nof  the\t trial court which had the advantage of\t seeing\t the
\nwitnesses  and hearing their evidence can be  reversed\tonly
\nfor very substantial and compelling reasons.
\n    On the whole, we are inclined to hold that the  Sessions
\nJudge had taken a reasonable view of the facts of the  case,
\nand in our opinion there were no good reasons for  reversing
\nthat view.  The assessors with whose aid the trial was held,
\nwere  unanimously of the opinion that the accused  were\t not
\nguilty, and
\n202<\/span>
\nthough\t25  persons were placed on trial on  identical\tevi-
\ndence, the State Government preferred an appeal only against
\n5 of them on the sole ground that the acquittal was  against
\nthe weight of evidence on the record.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result, we allow the appeal, set aside the\tcon-
\nviction\t and sentences of the appellants and acquit them  of
\nall the charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: P.K. Chatterjee.
\nAgent for the respondent: I. N. Shroff for P.K.
\nBose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 52, 1952 SCR 193 Author: S Fazal Ali Bench: Fazal Ali, Saiyid PETITIONER: SURAJPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/12\/1951 BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BOSE, VIVIAN CITATION: […]<\/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-202791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSurajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - 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\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\" \/>\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=\"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-23T00:57:39+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\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T00:57:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\"},\"wordCount\":2989,\"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\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\",\"name\":\"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-23T00:57:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - 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\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-23T00:57:39+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\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951","datePublished":"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T00:57:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951"},"wordCount":2989,"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\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951","name":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-23T00:57:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajpal-singh-and-others-vs-the-state-on-20-december-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surajpal Singh And Others vs The State on 20 December, 1951"}]},{"@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\/202791","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=202791"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202791\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}