{"id":213668,"date":"2009-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-11T06:47:59","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T01:17:59","slug":"baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                  REPORTABLE\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2008\n\n\nBALDEV SINGH                                        ... APPELLANT\n\n                                Versus\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB                                     ... RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
14.12.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &<\/p>\n
Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB of 2006 affirming<\/p>\n
the judgment and order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Jalandhar convicting the appellant herein for commission of an<\/p>\n
offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5000\/-, and in default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.<\/p>\n
2.    Appellant – Baldev Singh and Pritam Singh (the deceased) were<\/p>\n
brothers. Both were Non Resident Indians (N.R.I.).<\/p>\n
      A civil suit was filed by the deceased Pritam Singh against his<\/p>\n
nephew Harbhinder Singh, Tehal Singh and his brother Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
seeking declaration that the sale deed executed on 21st October, 1997 on<\/p>\n
the basis of a Power of Attorney dated 15th October 1990 is null and void<\/p>\n
as it was allegedly forged and fabricated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      On or about 17.2.2001 at about 11.00 a.m., when Pritam Singh was<\/p>\n
making preparation to leave his house in Paragpur for Jalandhar (Punjab),<\/p>\n
he was killed at his residence. The said incident was allegedly witnessed<\/p>\n
by Nath Ram (P.W. 25), who was a servant of Pritam Singh for last 40<\/p>\n
years and Parminder @ Bittu, the driver of the deceased.<\/p>\n
      A First Information Report (“FIR” for short) was lodged marked as<\/p>\n
FIR No. 131 of 2001 on 17.2.2001 at about 1.40 p.m. by P.W. 25, wherein<\/p>\n
he stated:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “Since last forty years, I have been working as
\n             Servant with Pritam Singh, resident of Pragpur.<\/p>\n
             Pritam Singh is an NRI who is residing in
\n             England. He has kothi and land in village
\n             Pragpur. I look after it and Pritam Singh also
\n             visits the place. Pritam Singh has been living in
\n                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
his kothi at Pragpur for the last about 5-6 years.
\nWhenever in the morning, Pritam Singh used to
\ngo out in car, then after his crossing I used to
\nclose the gate from inside. Today, at about 11
\nA.M., Pritam Singh after taking meals got ready
\nto go to Jalandhar and I also came out from the
\nKothi. Parminder Singh @ Bittu driver was
\nstanding outside, who also accompanied us. In
\nthe meanwhile two youngmen came inside
\nthrough main gate and came to us. One of these
\nyoungmen was clean shaven who had covered
\nhimself with thin blanket (loi). He was having
\ngood height, wheatish complexion and putting
\nhelmet on his head. The second one was a Sikh
\nhaving wheatish complexion wearing turban on
\nhis head and having beared. Clean shaven
\nperson took out small double barrel gun .12 bore
\nfrom loi wrapped by him and fired a shot at
\nPritam Singh. Then Pritam Singh saved himself
\ncleverly and went inside. Both these youngmen
\nchased Pritam Singh and went inside through
\nKainchi gate. Then clean shaven person gave
\nfired another shot at Pritam Singh, which hit on
\nthe right side of the back of Pritam Singh as a
\nresult of which, Pritam Singh fell down straight
\non the floor and blood started oozing from back
\nand chest. Both these youngmen ran away
\ntogether with their arms and ammunition
\nthrough main gate. We both saw Pritam Singh.\n<\/p>\n
The abdomen of Pritam Singh was ruptured and
\nhe had died. Parminder Singh driver and I have
\nwitnessed this occurrence. The cause of grudge
\nis that a dispute between both real brothers
\nPritam Singh and Baldev Singh regarding Kothi
\nand land is pending in the Court at Jalandhar,
\nwhich was fixed for hearing on yesterday i.e.
\n15.2.2001 (sic 16.2.2001). In the year 1988,
\nBaldev Singh along with his sons, son-in-law
\nand other persons duly armed with ammunition
\nhad tried to take possession of kothi and land.
\nBaldev Singh and his accomplices had fired
\nshots and Gurmej Singh of Pritam Singh’s party
\nhad died, and one person had become injured.\n<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
            In this regard, case FIR No.221\/88, under
\n            Section 302\/307, 148\/149 IPC 25\/27\/54\/59
\n            Arms Act was registered in the Police Station, in
\n            which Baldev Singh was convicted and his sons
\n            are absconders and have fled away to foreign
\n            country. I am sure that even now Baldev Singh,
\n            by sending both these youngmen by giving them
\n            allurement has got murdered Pritam Singh with
\n            gun-shot. I can identify both these youngmen if
\n            they come across me. Action be taken. I have
\n            heard my statement, which is correct.”\n<\/p>\n
      The Investigating Officer prepared an inquest report on 17.2.2001.<\/p>\n
He recovered the clothes and a pair of spectacles with the left glass<\/p>\n
missing belonging to the deceased. He noticed a gun shot injury on the<\/p>\n
right side of the back of the deceased. His abdomen was ruptured as<\/p>\n
pellets had struck in the back and right hand. The Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
also picked up the blood stained soil from the spot, a blood stained<\/p>\n
spectacles cover and two empty .12 bore cartridges. He also recovered<\/p>\n
from outside the room a Canadian driving licence bearing No. 6130617<\/p>\n
allegedly belonging to Harbhinder Singh. The dead body was thereafter<\/p>\n
sent for post mortem examination.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      On 18.2.2001, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted by a<\/p>\n
medical board consisting of Dr. H.S. Kahlon (P.W.1), Dr. Rajnish and Dr.<\/p>\n
Ranbir Singh. It was of the opinion that the death was caused due to<\/p>\n
shock and hemorrhage, following fire arm injuries which was sufficient to<\/p>\n
cause death in the ordinary course of business. It was also stated in the
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
report that the death had occurred immediately and the time of death is 24<\/p>\n
hours prior to holding of the post mortem examination.<\/p>\n
       On 20.2.2001, Harbhinder Singh was arrested from the Indira<\/p>\n
Gandhi International Air Port at Delhi while he was about to leave for<\/p>\n
London. On the same day, one Avtar Singh was also arrested by the<\/p>\n
police.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       On 23.2.2001, both Harbhinder Singh as well as Avtar Singh made<\/p>\n
disclosure statements to the police. Pursuant to the recording of the<\/p>\n
alleged disclosure, some recoveries were made on the pointing out of the<\/p>\n
accused persons, including two empty cartridges allegedly fired from the<\/p>\n
gun.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against<\/p>\n
Harbhinder Singh and Avtar Singh under Section 302\/450 IPC read with<\/p>\n
34 IPC and Sections 25\/27 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       A large number of witnesses were examined during the course of<\/p>\n
the trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge opining that Harbhinder<\/p>\n
Singh and Avtar Singh were guilty, convicted them for commission of<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 302\/450 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
4.    Indisputably, appellant – Baldev Singh left India on 16th February<\/p>\n
2001 for Vancouver. He returned to India on 19th August, 2004. His<\/p>\n
arrival at Delhi Airport was communicated to SSP, Jalandhar. On the<\/p>\n
basis of this information, ASI Harpal Singh (P.W. 13) after obtaining<\/p>\n
production warrants arrested Baldev Singh on 20th August, 2004.         A<\/p>\n
supplementary report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure (“Code” for short) was filed against him on 24th August 2005.<\/p>\n
Charge was framed against him under Section 120-B IPC on 19th<\/p>\n
September, 2005. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.<\/p>\n
      The learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial against the appellant<\/p>\n
separately and examined as many as 28 prosecution witnesses.          The<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge found him guilty for commission of an offence<\/p>\n
under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and sentenced him to undergo life<\/p>\n
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000\/-, and in default whereof to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.<\/p>\n
      In arriving at the said finding , the following evidences were taken<\/p>\n
into consideration:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      i)     Deceased was brother of the appellant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ii)    He had a motive to get the brother killed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
      iii)   Lalit Kumar (P.W.26) being an independent witness, there<\/p>\n
             was no reason to disbelieve his evidence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv)    Statement of Avtar Singh is admissible under Section 30 of<\/p>\n
             the Evidence Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      v)     Gun with which the shots were fired earlier belonged to the<\/p>\n
             appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.    As noticed hereinbefore, criminal appeal filed by the appellant has<\/p>\n
been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
inter alia holding:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “When all the evidence is taken together the
\n             conclusion that is irresistible is that Baldev
\n             Singh master-minded his brother’s murder.
\n             Baldev Siingh was a convict who was
\n             undergoing life sentence, was on bail after his
\n             sentence was suspended. Baldev Singh had
\n             managed to convince Avtar Singh, a fellow
\n             jailmate, to also join Harbhinder Singh, who
\n             arrived in India on February 7, Baldev Singh
\n             purchased the weapon, his son took the weapon
\n             and shot the deceased, Baldev Singh left India a
\n             day before the occurrence while Harbhinder
\n             Singh tried to flee three days after occurrence.
\n             The latter was arrested but the former had
\n             successfully managed to escape. Baldev Singh’s
\n             gun was recovered from the possession of his
\n             son Harbhinder Singh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The above chain of circumstances is so
\n             complete that one cannot take a view other than
\n             that Pritam Singh’s murder was committed on
\n             the basis of a conspiracy in which Pritam
\n             Singh’s brother Baldev Singh was a participant,
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
            may be the leader. The circumstances are
\n            crystal clear and there does not appear to be any
\n            ambiguity and inconsistency in the chain. The
\n            circumstantial evidence also finds support from
\n            the evidence of Sukhdev Singh (PW-22) and
\n            Lalit Kumar (PW-26). Therefore, the argument
\n            of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
\n            appellant was not in the country when Pritam
\n            Singh was murdered and could not have
\n            conspired in the murder cannot be accepted.
\n            Conspirators conspire in secrecy and disperse
\n            after the plan has been finalized and separate
\n            tasks are assigned to each members of the
\n            conspiracy. The conspiracy in this case was to
\n            murder Pritam Singh. It was between Baldev
\n            Singh and his son and also between Baldev
\n            Singh and Avtar Singh. Therefore, the obvious
\n            conclusion in this case, on the basis of strong
\n            circumstantial evidence, would be that Baldev
\n            Singh indeed was a member of the conspiracy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  In the light of the above, evidence of
\n            Sukhdev Singh and Lalit Kumar provides
\n            support to the circumstantial evidence. The
\n            argument that Harbhinder Singh had not acted at
\n            the behest of his father finds no support, either
\n            from the evidence on record or from any other
\n            circumstance. This argument is hollow as the
\n            circumstantial evidence against the appellant is
\n            very strong regarding his participation as a
\n            conspirator in his brother’s murder.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.    Indisputably, the incident took place on 17.2.2001. Appellant had<\/p>\n
left India for Vancouver (Canada) on 16.2.2001, i.e., a day prior to the<\/p>\n
date of incident. He came back to India in August 2004 when he was<\/p>\n
arrested. The main accused, namely, Avtar Singh and Harbhinder Singh,<\/p>\n
however, were tried separately. We may notice that Harbhinder Singh
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and Avtar Singh was found guilty<\/p>\n
under Section 302\/34 IPC. They were also found guilty under Section<\/p>\n
450 IPC. Whereas Harbhinder Singh was also found guilty under Section<\/p>\n
27 of the Arms Act, Avtar Singh was found guilty under Section 25<\/p>\n
thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      It is, however, of some significance to notice that Avtar Singh and<\/p>\n
Harbhinder Singh were not charged for commission of offence under<\/p>\n
Section 120B IPC. The legal position in this regard will be adverted to a<\/p>\n
little later. At this stage, we may also notice that both the courts below<\/p>\n
have passed the aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence as<\/p>\n
against the appellant relying inter alia on the evidence of Lalit Kumar<\/p>\n
(PW-26), who was a taxi driver and is said to have overheard the<\/p>\n
conversation amongst the accused in regard to hatching of a purported<\/p>\n
conspiracy as also on the basis of an extra judicial confession purported to<\/p>\n
have been made by Avtar Singh before Sukhdev Singh (P.W.22). It now<\/p>\n
stands admitted that apart from the aforementioned two pieces of<\/p>\n
evidence, no other evidence was brought on record against the appellant.<\/p>\n
7.    P.W. 26 – Lalit Kumar – was a taxi driver. His statement was<\/p>\n
recorded in the court on 15.1.2002. Accused persons are said to have<\/p>\n
hired his taxi from Goraya for going to Paragpur. On the way, they<\/p>\n
stopped at a `Dhaba’. According to him, although he was a taxi driver he
\n                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
shared food and drinks with the accused. A plan to cause the death of<\/p>\n
Pritam Singh was said to have been discussed by them only at the said<\/p>\n
Dhaba.    On the one hand, he stated that he overheard the accused<\/p>\n
discussing the said subject, but on the other, as noticed hereinbefore, he<\/p>\n
shared meals and drinks with them. In his cross-examination he admitted<\/p>\n
that he did not know the accused persons from before; he did not<\/p>\n
remember the number of his taxi; he was not an owner of the taxi; he had<\/p>\n
plied taxi only for five days. It is borne out from records that he came to<\/p>\n
court with Rana, who had shown active interest in the case.<\/p>\n
      He, when confronted with his statements made before the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, stated:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “Out of my two statements made above my
\n             statement with regard to accused having
\n             consumed the liquor in the ahata is correct and
\n             my other statement of consuming liquor by
\n             accused in dhaba is wrong. 3-4 more people
\n             were there in the said ahata.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Indisputably, he did not reveal the said fact to any other person. He<\/p>\n
made his statement for the first time before the police. He made a<\/p>\n
statement thereafter only in the court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    Although he did not have any acquaintance with the accused<\/p>\n
persons; he not only could identify the accused in court but appears to
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
have been knowing their nick names as also their avocation of life.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, Rana is his partner in a business concern known as Saraswati<\/p>\n
Mill Store, the office of which is located in the building of Rana. His<\/p>\n
evidence, in our opinion, does not inspire confidence.<\/p>\n
9.    Conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the IPC to mean:<\/p>\n
             “120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-
\n             When two or more persons agree to do, or cause
\n             to be done,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (1) an illegal act, or<\/p>\n
                       (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal
\n                       means, such an agreement is
\n                       designated a criminal conspiracy:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Provided that no agreement except
\n                           an agreement to commit an offence
\n                           shall amount to a criminal
\n                           conspiracy unless some act besides
\n                           the agreement is done by one or
\n                           more parties to such agreement in
\n                           pursuance thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Explanation.–It is immaterial whether the
\n                    illegal act is the ultimate object of such
\n                    agreement, or is merely incidental to that
\n                    object.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence,<\/p>\n
thus, would require involvement of more than one person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable<\/p>\n
separately; its ingredients being:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (i)    an agreement between two or more persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
      (ii)   the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done<\/p>\n
             either (a) an illegal act; (b) an act which is not illegal in itself<\/p>\n
             but is done by illegal means.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is<\/p>\n
hatched in secrecy. The court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to<\/p>\n
whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into<\/p>\n
consideration the circumstantial evidence. While however doing so, it<\/p>\n
must be borne in mind that meeting of the mind is essential; mere<\/p>\n
knowledge or discussion would not be.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Adverting to the said question once again, we may, however, notice<\/p>\n
that recently in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/p>\n
[(2008) 6 SCALE 469], a Division Bench of this Court held:<\/p>\n
             “23. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of
\n             minds of two or more persons for doing an
\n             illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua
\n             non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be
\n             possible to prove the agreement between them
\n             by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the
\n             conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from
\n             the surrounding circumstances and the conduct
\n             of the accused. But the incriminating
\n             circumstances must form a chain of events from
\n             which a conclusion about the guilt of the
\n             accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an
\n             offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence
\n             and renders the mere agreement to commit an
\n             offence punishable even if an offence does not
\n             take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
      Yet again in Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[(2008) 14 SCALE 639], this Court following Ram Lal Narang vs. State<\/p>\n
(Delhi Administration<\/a> [(1979) 2 SCC 322] held that a conspiracy may be<\/p>\n
a general one and a separate one meaning thereby a larger conspiracy and<\/p>\n
a smaller which may develop in successive stages.               For the<\/p>\n
aforementioned purpose, the conduct of the parties also assumes some<\/p>\n
relevance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala<\/a> [(2005) 12 SCC 631],<\/p>\n
this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “11. Section 120A of I.P.C. defines ‘criminal
\n             conspiracy.’ According to this Section when two
\n             or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not
\n             illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
\n             designed a criminal conspiracy. In Major E.G.
\n             Barsay v. State of Bombay,<\/a> (1962) 2 SCR 195,
\n             Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court has said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “The gist of the offence is an
\n                   agreement to break the law. The
\n                   parties to such an agreement will be
\n                   guilty of criminal conspiracy,
\n                   though the illegal act agreed to be
\n                   done has not been done. So too, it is
\n                   not an ingredient of the offence that
\n                   all the parties should agree to do a
\n                   single illegal act, It may comprise
\n                   the commission of a number of
\n                   acts.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   xxx          xxx          xxx
\n                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of
\n           mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal
\n           act or an act by illegal means is the first and
\n           primary condition and it is not necessary that all
\n           the conspirators must know each and every
\n           detail of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that
\n           every one of the conspirators takes active part in
\n           the commission of each and every conspiratorial
\n           acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators
\n           can be inferred by necessary implications. In
\n           most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by
\n           the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is
\n           seldom an open affair, The existence of
\n           conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted
\n           from the circumstances of the case and the
\n           conduct of the accused involved in the
\n           conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of
\n           the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the Court to
\n           keep in mind the well-known rule governing
\n           circumstantial evidence viz., each and every
\n           incriminating circumstance must be clearly
\n           established by reliable evidence and the
\n           circumstances proved must form a chain of
\n           events from which the only irresistible
\n           conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be
\n           safely drawn, and no other hypothesis against
\n           the guilt is possible. The criminal conspiracy is
\n           an independent offence in Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           The unlawful agreement is sine quo non for
\n           constituting offence under Indian Penal Code
\n           and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists
\n           of the scheme or adjustment between two or
\n           more persons which may be express or implied
\n           or partly express and partly implied. Mere
\n           knowledge, even discussion, of the Plan would
\n           not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of
\n           conspiracy shall continue till the termination of
\n           agreement.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As noticed hereinbefore, neither Avtar Singh nor Harbhinder Singh<\/p>\n
were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B
\n                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
IPC.   In our opinion, therefore, appellant alone could not have been<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.<\/p>\n
       In Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri Ors. vs. State of Punjab [(1983) 2<\/p>\n
SCR 605], this Court cautioned that the court ordinarily should not<\/p>\n
convict a person for commission of offence of conspiracy on the basis of a<\/p>\n
weak evidence, stating:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “The evidence regarding conspiracy is as weak
\n            as the evidence about the dying declaration of
\n            Sohan Singh, Surat Singh (P.W. 27) speaks of a
\n            meeting between the co-conspirators in the
\n            house of accused No. 1, Darshan Singh alias
\n            Bhasuri. We cannot believe that in the presence
\n            of an utter stranger like Surat Singh, the
\n            conspirators would discuss their plans to commit
\n            these murders, throwing all caution to the winds.
\n            The answer of the High Court is that the
\n            conspirators were taking liquor while discussing
\n            the conspiracy and,<\/p>\n
                   `When liquor is taken, then under its
\n                   influence sometimes most secret things
\n                   are divulged in the presence of a
\n                   person who is not so intimately
\n                   connected. It is often said, when liquor
\n                   goes in, truth comes out.’<\/p>\n
                  This is somewhat artless. Liquor is no lie-
\n            detector and we cannot assume that accused
\n            Nos. 1 and 2 were so drunk as to overlook the
\n            presence of a stranger in their midst yet not so
\n            drunk so as to be unable to discuss the execution
\n            of their criminal design. Besides, Surat Singh
\n            forgot all about the incident and was contacted
\n            by the police a few days later. The learned
\n            Sessions Judge was right in holding that Surat
\n            Singh’s evidence suffers from certain infirmities,
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
            because of which one could not place implicit
\n            reliance upon him. We would go further and say
\n            that his evidence is too unnatural to merit
\n            serious attention. Apart from the evidence of
\n            motive, Surat Singh’s evidence in regard to the
\n            conspiracy is the only evidence against accused
\n            No. 1 Bhasuri and accused No. 2 Joga Singh. It
\n            is on that evidence that these two accused have
\n            been convicted under Section 120-B read with
\n            Section 302 of the Penal Code, the former being
\n            sentenced to death and the latter, because of his
\n            young age, to life imprisonment,”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.   We are now left with the question of purported extra judicial<\/p>\n
confession by the co-accused Avtar Singh.       Such a purported extra<\/p>\n
judicial confession was made by Avtar Singh before Sukhdev Singh<\/p>\n
(P.W.22). The distance between the village wherein Avtar Singh was a<\/p>\n
resident and that of the said Sukhdev Singh was said to be 100 kms. He<\/p>\n
allegedly visited Sukhdev Singh on 18.2.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. For no<\/p>\n
apparent reason, he had disclosed that he along with Bhinda (Harbhinder<\/p>\n
Singh) had committed the murder of Pritam Singh. No details thereof had<\/p>\n
been furnished. A purported disclosure was also made that the murder<\/p>\n
was committed at the instance of the appellant herein. He was asked to<\/p>\n
come on the next day. He neither visited him thereafter nor was he<\/p>\n
produced before the police by P.W.22. There is nothing on record to<\/p>\n
show that such a purported extra judicial confession by Avtar Singh was<\/p>\n
conveyed to the police authorities; P.W. 22’s statement having been<\/p>\n
recorded on 19.2.2001.\n<\/p>\n
                                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
       If he was so familiar with the family of Avtar Singh, there was<\/p>\n
absolutely no reason whey he was not in a position to state as to what was<\/p>\n
the composition of his family. He admitted that he had never visited the<\/p>\n
village of Avtar Singh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Evidence of extra judicial confession is generally of a weak nature.<\/p>\n
No conviction ordinarily can be based solely thereupon unless the same is<\/p>\n
corroborated in material particulars.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    Extra judicial confession must be found to be reliable. P.W. 22 was<\/p>\n
examined by the police authorities also in some other cases. A suggestion<\/p>\n
was put to him that he was a police tout. His evidence, therefore, in our<\/p>\n
opinion, cannot be relied upon. If his evidence cannot be relied upon, the<\/p>\n
same could not have formed foundation of recording a judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence and that too in a case of conspiracy. We must<\/p>\n
also notice that the evidence of purported extra judicial confession by<\/p>\n
itself cannot be held to be sufficient for recording a judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction against a co-accused in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       In Jaspal Singh alias Pali vs. State of Punjab [(1997) 1 SCC 510],<\/p>\n
this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “15. The third contention of Mr. Sodhi viz.,
\n             that it is highly improbable that Jaspal Singh (A-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
            1) would have gone to this witness alongwith his
\n            co-accused to confess the guilt, is equally
\n            formidable. Chhota Singh (PW 7) has not given
\n            any reason as to why and how Jaspal Singh (A-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            1) and other co-accused have reposed such a
\n            confidence in him and confessed their guilt.
\n            After going through the evidence of Chhota
\n            Singh (PW 7), we do not find it safe to hold any
\n            of the appellants guilty in the present crime.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.   For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgment being<\/p>\n
unsustainable is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is in<\/p>\n
custody; he is directed to be set at liberty unless wanted in connection<\/p>\n
with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        ………………………………..J.
\n                                         [S.B. Sinha]<\/p>\n
                                        ………………………………..J.
\n                                        [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
May 06, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2008 BALDEV SINGH … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB … RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal […]<\/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-213668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBaldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - 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\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T01:17:59+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T01:17:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4071,\"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\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T01:17:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - 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\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T01:17:59+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T01:17:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009"},"wordCount":4071,"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\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009","name":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T01:17:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009"}]},{"@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\/213668","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=213668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}