{"id":214571,"date":"1999-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999"},"modified":"2018-09-13T11:34:22","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T06:04:22","slug":"suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSURESH SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF  HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/03\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nG.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellants  Suresh Singh and Mohinder Singh\thave<br \/>\nbeen convicted under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced<br \/>\nto  undergo life imprisonment whereas the appellant  Chander<br \/>\nPal  has been convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and has<br \/>\nbeen sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years<br \/>\nby  the\t High  Court  of  Punjab  &amp;  Haryana.\tThese  three<br \/>\nappellants  and\t seven\tothers\twere tried  by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge,  Rewari   for  offences   under<br \/>\nSections  148\/149\/324\/325\/302\/307 IPC, for having formed  an<br \/>\nunlawful  assembly and committing murder of Mahipal as\twell<br \/>\nas  having injured Chand Ram, Chander Deep and Rajbir,\twhen<br \/>\nthey  came  to\trescue\t Mahipal.   Learned  Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nacquitted  four\t of the accused persons of all\tthe  charges<br \/>\nafter  screening the prosecution evidence on a finding\tthat<br \/>\nthose  accused persons were not present at the spot but they<br \/>\nwere named later on to implicate as many persons as possible<br \/>\nfrom  the  side\t of the accused.  The  Sessions\t Judge\talso<br \/>\nacquitted  rest\t of  the six accused persons of\t the  charge<br \/>\nunder  Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC, but  convicted<br \/>\nthem  under  Sections 148\/302\/323\/324\/325 read with  Section<br \/>\n149  IPC.  The convicted accused persons preferred an appeal<br \/>\nto  the\t High  court  and the High  Court  by  the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment  acquitted  three more accused persons of  all\t the<br \/>\ncharges\t levelled  against  them and acquitted\tthe  present<br \/>\nthree  appellants of rest of the charges and convicted\tonly<br \/>\nunder  Section 302 and 304 Part I IPC, as already stated and<br \/>\nhence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The   prosecution\t case  as   unfolded  in  the  first<br \/>\ninformation  report  given  by PW5 is  that  while  deceased<br \/>\nMahipal\t was  sitting  on  a cot in front of  his  house  on<br \/>\n13.9.89\t at  5.30 P.M., all the accused persons\t armed\twith<br \/>\ndifferent deadly weapons arrived there and accused Rameshwar<br \/>\nhaving given a lalkara that Mahipal should not be allowed to<br \/>\ngo, they gave different blows on different parts of the body<br \/>\nof Mahipal.  Hearing the cries of Mahipal, when his brothers<br \/>\nChand  Ram, Chander Deep and Rajbir rushed to the spot, they<br \/>\nwere  also attacked and thereafter the accused persons\tleft<br \/>\nthe  scene  of\toccurrence  when   the\tvillagers  had\tbeen<br \/>\ncollected at the spot.\tAccording to prosecution version the<br \/>\nmotive\tbehind\tthe  occurrence was that Rameshwar  was\t the<br \/>\nSarpanch  of the village and on account of instigation\tfrom<br \/>\nMahipal when several members of the Punchayat did not attend<br \/>\nthe  meeting, no meeting could be held on account of lack of<br \/>\nquorum and it is on this score that Rameshwar and his people<br \/>\nhad a grudge against Mahipal and they avenged of the same by<br \/>\nassaulting  him\t on  the fateful day.  On the basis  of\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  report  of PW5, the investigation  proceeded\t and<br \/>\nultimately  charge-sheet  was  submitted   and\tthe  accused<br \/>\npersons\t stood\ttheir  trial.\t The  deceased\tMahipal\t had<br \/>\nsustained as many as 8 injuries on his person and the doctor<br \/>\nPW17  who  conducted autopsy over the dead body opined\tthat<br \/>\nthe  death  was\t due  to shock and haemorrhage\tdue  to\t the<br \/>\ninjuries   which  were\tante-mortem  in\t nature\t  and\twere<br \/>\nsufficient  to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.<br \/>\nThis  conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge based on\t the<br \/>\nevidence  of  PW17 has not been assailed in any\t form.\t The<br \/>\ndefence\t put  forth by the accused persons was a  denial  of<br \/>\nprosecution  allegation.  The accused persons had taken\t the<br \/>\nplea  that it is Mahipal, Chand Ram, Chander Deep and Rajbir<br \/>\nwho were armed with lathi and sharp edged weapons and caused<br \/>\ninjuries to accused Chander Pal, Mohinder Singh and Parbati,<br \/>\nwho in self defence of their person have caused the injuries<br \/>\non Mahipal, Chander Deep, Chand Ram and Rajbir.\t The learned<br \/>\nSessions  Judge came to the conclusion that accused  Balbir,<br \/>\nRam  Kishan  and Ram Sarup were not present at the spot\t and<br \/>\nthey  were named later on to falsely implicate them from the<br \/>\nside  of  the accused.\tHe also came to the conclusion\tthat<br \/>\naccused\t Ram Sarup an aged man of 90 years, hardly steady on<br \/>\nhis  legs  cannot  be believed to have given jelly  blow  on<br \/>\nMahipal and, therefore, serious doubts exist on his presence<br \/>\nat  the time of occurrence and as such acquitted them of all<br \/>\nthe  offences  charged with.  But notwithstanding  the\tfact<br \/>\nthat  the eye witnesses PWs 5, 6 and 7 had made\t improvement<br \/>\nto their statements made before the Police under Section 161<br \/>\nCr.P.C.,  the  learned\tJudge was of the opinion  that\tsuch<br \/>\nimprovements  do not go to the root of the prosecution story<br \/>\nand  as such are of very minor nature and consequently,\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses  can\tbe relied upon so far as they deposed  about<br \/>\nthe role played by the rest six accused persons.  With these<br \/>\nconclusions  and having considered the evidence of the three<br \/>\neye  witnesses\tand  the role ascribed by them\tto  the\t six<br \/>\naccused\t persons, the six accused persons were convicted  by<br \/>\nhim for the offences as already indicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  High\t Court in appeal, re-appreciated the  entire<br \/>\nevidence  on  record  and came to the  conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nmotive\talleged\t by the prosecution that Sarpanch  Rameshwar<br \/>\nhad  a grudge against Mahipal, as he was the instrumental in<br \/>\nnot  getting the quorum in the meeting of the Panchayat\t has<br \/>\nnot  been  established by the prosecution and on  the  other<br \/>\nhand the defence version as given by the accused Chander Pal<br \/>\nin  his report to the Police at 7.30 P.M., hardly two  hours<br \/>\nafter  the  occurrence\tappears\t to  be\t more  probable\t and<br \/>\nconsequently  the  entire episode took place on\t account  of<br \/>\nannoyance  created by Mahipal in indulging in abusing  under<br \/>\nthe  influence\tof  liquor.  Disagreeing  with\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSessions  Judge,  the  High  Court   came  to  the   further<br \/>\nconclusion  that it was the bounden duty of the\t prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses  to  explain\tthe  injury on\tthe  person  of\t the<br \/>\naccused.   The\tHigh Court also was of the opinion that\t the<br \/>\noccurrence  did\t not  take place in front of  the  house  of<br \/>\nMahipal\t as alleged by the prosecution but at a distance  of<br \/>\n110  feet from the said place when the deceased had given  a<br \/>\nchase to accused Rameshwar.  But the High Court further came<br \/>\nto  the conclusion that even if accused Rameshwar was  being<br \/>\nchased\tby Mahipal and it is that point of time he inflicted<br \/>\nthe  blows on the deceased, but they cannot claim a right of<br \/>\nprivate\t defence  of persons and exception 4 to Section\t 300<br \/>\nIPC  applies,  which  is  apparent from the  nature  of\t the<br \/>\ninjuries  on the deceased.  The High Court on an analysis of<br \/>\nthe evidence also was of the view that in view of the sudden<br \/>\nfight,\tthe provisions of Sections 148\/149 or Section 34 IPC<br \/>\ncould  not  be\tattracted.  Besides the\t conviction  of\t all<br \/>\naccused under Sections 323,324 and 325 read with Section 149<br \/>\nis  not sustainable as the element of voluntariness is\tlost<br \/>\nin  case  of  sudden  fight.\tTherefore,  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nacquitted  three  of the accused persons and  convicted\t the<br \/>\nthree  appellants of the charge under Section 302 IPC so far<br \/>\nas appellant Suresh and Mohinder are concerned and convicted<br \/>\nthe appellant Chander Pal under Section 304 Part I IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.    U.R.   Lalit,  the\t  learned  Senior   Counsel,<br \/>\nappearing for the appellants contended before us that on the<br \/>\nbasis  of  the evidence of the eye witnesses, major part  of<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  case\thaving been disbelieved,  both\twith<br \/>\nregard\tto  the motive as well as the sequence of  event  as<br \/>\nunfolded  through the witnesses and seven out of 10  accused<br \/>\npersons having been acquitted, it would be unsafe to convict<br \/>\nthe  three appellants on their evidence.  Mr.  Lalit further<br \/>\ncontended that in view of the finding of the High Court that<br \/>\nit  is\tthe accused Rameshwar, who was being chased  by\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  Mahipal  and\tat  that point\tof  time  the  three<br \/>\nappellants  had\t inflicted  the blows on the  deceased,\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the right of private defence will  not  be<br \/>\navailable is erroneous.\t More so when each of the appellants<br \/>\nhave  been  stated  to\thave  given one\t blow  each  on\t the<br \/>\ndeceased,  Mr.\tLalit also contended that even if the  court<br \/>\ncomes  to a conclusion that the accused appellants  exceeded<br \/>\ntheir  right  of private defence by giving the blows on\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  but taking into account the sequence of events  as<br \/>\naccepted  by  the  High Court and taking  into\taccount\t the<br \/>\nnumber\t of  blows  alleged  to\t  have\tbeen  given  by\t the<br \/>\nappellants,  the  conviction can only be under\tSection\t 304<br \/>\nPart  I, IPC and for such conviction, sentence should not be<br \/>\nmore than seven years in any event.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent  on the other hand contended that it is no  doubt<br \/>\ntrue  that six of the accused persons have been acquitted by<br \/>\nnow  but  their acquittal is on account of benefit of  doubt<br \/>\nhaving\tbeen  given and the testimony of the  eye  witnesses<br \/>\ncannot\tbe totally ignored on that score, particularly\twhen<br \/>\nthe  witnesses\tthemselves  are injured.  According  to\t Mr.<br \/>\nMalhotra,  the injuries on the accused persons are such that<br \/>\neven  if the prosecution has offered no explanation for\t the<br \/>\nsame, the prosecution case will not fall on that score.\t Mr.<br \/>\nMalhortra  further  submitted that in view of  the  positive<br \/>\nrole  ascribed to these appellants, the High Court was fully<br \/>\njustified  in  convicting them of the charges under  Section<br \/>\n302  so\t far as the first two appellants are  concerned\t and<br \/>\nSection\t 304  Part  I,\tso far as  the\tthird  appellant  is<br \/>\nconcerned and there is no infirmity in the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Having considered the rival submissions at the bar and<br \/>\nhaving\tscrutinised the impugned Judgment of the High  Court<br \/>\nand  the findings recorded thereon, there is ample force  in<br \/>\nthe  submission of Mr.\tLalit, appearing for the appellants.<br \/>\nIt  was\t possible  for\tthe prosecution to  argue  that\t the<br \/>\nconviction  can be sustained on the evidence which have\t not<br \/>\nbeen  relied upon by the High Court but such a step has\t not<br \/>\nbeen  taken and Mr.  Malhotra has not advanced any  argument<br \/>\non  that score.\t But at the same time, we cannot lose  sight<br \/>\nof the fact that some of the findings arrived at by the High<br \/>\nCourt  on  the face of it, is wholly unsustainable.  But  we<br \/>\nare  not  examining the same in depth as there has  been  no<br \/>\nappeal against the acquittal recorded by the High Court even<br \/>\nas  against the appellants of all other charges.  This being<br \/>\nthe position, we have ourselves examined the evidence of the<br \/>\neye  witnesses to find out whether the role ascribed by them<br \/>\nto  these  three  appellants of having given  blows  on\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  can at all be accepted or the entire evidence\t has<br \/>\nto  be\tdiscarded  as  contended   by  Mr.   Lalit.   Having<br \/>\nscrutinised  the  same with utmost care and bearing in\tmind<br \/>\nthe  medical evidence as unfolded through the doctor who has<br \/>\nconducted  the\tpost-mortem examination on the dead body  of<br \/>\nthe  deceased  Mahipal, which in our view  corroborates\t the<br \/>\nocular\tstatements of the three eye witnesses, we are unable<br \/>\nto  persuade  ourselves to agree with the submission of\t Mr.<br \/>\nLalit\tthat  the  entire   evidence  should  be   discarded<br \/>\nnotwithstanding\t the fact that the role ascribed as  against<br \/>\nother  accused\tpersons have not believed and seven  accused<br \/>\npersons\t have been acquitted and even the motive alleged  by<br \/>\nthem  has  not\tbeen believed.\tIn our\tconsidered  opinion,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the\t ocular\t statement  of\tthe  eye   witnesses<br \/>\nascribing  a particular role to the appellants in the matter<br \/>\nof  giving blows on the deceased by different weapons can be<br \/>\naccepted  and we find no infirmity in the impugned  Judgment<br \/>\nof  the\t High  Court in accepting the same.   The  question,<br \/>\nfurther remains for consideration is whether the accused can<br \/>\nclaim  a right of private defence of person when their\tcase<br \/>\nhas been believed by the High Court that while Rameshwar was<br \/>\nbeing  chased by Mahipal, the appellants who happened to  be<br \/>\nrelated\t to  Rameshwar,\t came  to the spot  on\thearing\t the<br \/>\nHullah,\t gave the three blows in question.  In\tappreciating<br \/>\nthis  contention  one thing must be borne in mind  that\t the<br \/>\ntheory\tof chasing may not have much significance in view of<br \/>\nthe  distance  between the house of Mahipal and the  accused<br \/>\npersons,  which\t is  hardly 56 paces, but all the  same\t the<br \/>\npositive  finding of the High Court that the occurrence\t did<br \/>\nnot  take place in front of the house of Mahipal as  alleged<br \/>\nby  the\t prosecution witnesses cannot be lost sight of.\t  As<br \/>\nhas been stated earlier, the injuries found on the person of<br \/>\nthe  accused persons were not that serious though the injury<br \/>\non  Mohinder  was an incised wound and could not  have\tbeen<br \/>\nlost sight of by the prosecution witnesses.  However for non<br \/>\nexplanation  of such injuries on accused persons the  entire<br \/>\nprosecution case cannot be thrown out.\tThe deceased, on the<br \/>\nother  hand  had  five incised wounds on his person  on\t the<br \/>\nfront  to parietal, temporal and tempro occipital region  of<br \/>\nthe skull and two abrasions and a bruise.  Even if we accept<br \/>\nthe  finding  of the High Court that the accused  appellants<br \/>\nassaulted  the\tdeceased while being chased by the  deceased<br \/>\nMahipal\t but  in  consideration\t of   the  injuries  on\t the<br \/>\ndeceased,  the\tconclusion is inescapable that\tthe  accused<br \/>\npersons exceeded their right of private defence while giving<br \/>\nthe  blows on the deceased.  Having taken into consideration<br \/>\nof all the aforesaid circumstances and the infirmities noted<br \/>\nearlier,  we  are of the opinion that the conviction of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  Suresh and Mohinder under Section 302 IPC cannot<br \/>\nbe  sustained.\t We, accordingly, acquit them of the  charge<br \/>\nunder Section 302 IPC and instead convict them under Section<br \/>\n304  Part  I ,IPC.  The conviction of the accused  appellant<br \/>\nChander\t Pal under Section 304 Part I is maintained and\t for<br \/>\nsuch conviction, we sentence all of<\/p>\n<p>      them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.<br \/>\nThis appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah PETITIONER: SURESH SINGH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/1999 BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, M.B.Shah JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK,J. The appellants Suresh Singh and Mohinder Singh have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2301,\"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\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\",\"name\":\"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999"},"wordCount":2301,"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\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999","name":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T06:04:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-singh-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-on-31-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Haryana on 31 March, 1999"}]},{"@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\/214571","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=214571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}