{"id":218516,"date":"2008-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-12T09:17:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-12T03:47:57","slug":"hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                   1\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                              Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998\n                              Date of decision: 14.11.2008\n\n\n\nHardev Singh and others\n                                                 ......Appellants\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                  .......Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n\n            HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:    Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab.\n\n                  ****\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SABINA, J.\n<\/p>\n
            Appellant Hardev Singh      @ Haiba, Gurdev Singh and<\/p>\n
Kuldip Singh have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 and<\/p>\n
25.9.1998     respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Patiala.\n<\/p>\n
            Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
para 2 of its judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “On 21.7.1992, Hamira Singh son of Mehma Singh made<\/p>\n
            a statement before Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan<\/p>\n
            Singh, when the police party was proceeding from village<\/p>\n
            Sarala to Jameetgarh etc. in connection with patrol duty.<\/p>\n
            Hamira Singh met the police party near the culvert of<\/p>\n
            village Marrian. Hamira Singh stated that he was resident<\/p>\n
            of village Harpalpur and was illiterate. He was a truck<\/p>\n
            driver.   Surjan Singh son of Isher Singh, who was his<\/p>\n
            maternal cousin (father’s elder brother’s son) got 75<\/p>\n
            Bighas of land from Harnam Kaur on the basis of a Will.<\/p>\n
            He got possession under the orders of the Court through<\/p>\n
            the revenue department about some months back. The<\/p>\n
            said land was in two portions. On that day at about 4.30<\/p>\n
            a.m., he, Surjan Singh, Gurmukh Singh son of Attar<\/p>\n
            Singh, resident of Dhangeri, Mohinder Singh son of Sher<\/p>\n
            Singh, resident of Naleena, Jaswant Singh son of Gurdial<\/p>\n
            Singh, resident of Mehmoodpur, Police Station Guhla,<\/p>\n
            Subheg Singh son of Kapur Singh, resident of Talheri,<\/p>\n
            Jagga Singh son of Mehar Singh, Gama son of Harnam<\/p>\n
            Singh, resident of Harpalpur and Mohinder Singh,<\/p>\n
            resident of Naleena, who was his brother-in-law, came on<\/p>\n
            Escort 37 tractor trolly from Harpalpur for ploughing the<\/p>\n
            land of Surjan Singh situated in village Loh Simbli. They<\/p>\n
            had also brought the seed of charri with them. Jaswant
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
            Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of Mehmoodpur was<\/p>\n
            armed with his licenced gun. They reached in about one<\/p>\n
            hour near the drain of dirty water in the area of Loh<\/p>\n
            Simbli.   They trolly was separated from the tractor.<\/p>\n
            Mohinder Singh started ploughing the land with the<\/p>\n
            tractor. They were throwing the seeds of charri in the<\/p>\n
            field. They ploughed about 3 kills of land. At about 7\/7-<\/p>\n
            30 a.m. a group of persons came from the side of Loh<\/p>\n
            Simbli.   When they came near, he recognised Balwant<\/p>\n
            Singh son of Waryam Singh, resident of Loh Simbli who<\/p>\n
            was empty handed, Gurdev Singh son of Jagir Singh,<\/p>\n
            resident of Loh Simbli was armed with a gandasi, Hardev<\/p>\n
            Singh @ Haiba son of Jagir Singh was armed with a 12<\/p>\n
            bore gun, Kesar Singh son of Jagir Singh, Jaswinder<\/p>\n
            Singh son of Kesar Singh, Karamjit Singh son of Kesar<\/p>\n
            Singh, Sukhjit Singh son of Hardev Singh and Kuldip<\/p>\n
            Singh son of Gudev Singh, all residents of Loh Simbli<\/p>\n
            were armed with dangs (sticks). Mohinder Singh son of<\/p>\n
            Gurdev Singh was armed with gandasi. Gurdev Singh<\/p>\n
            and Balwant Singh gave the lalkaras that they should<\/p>\n
            teach them a lesson for ploughing the land of a issueless<\/p>\n
            person.    Nobody should escape from there.       Hardev<\/p>\n
            Singh fired two gun shots from his 12 bore gun towards<\/p>\n
            Surjan Singh. Surjan Singh received the injuries on his<\/p>\n
            chest, on the left side of his abdomen and other parts of
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
            the body.     Mohinder Singh, who was armed with a<\/p>\n
            gandasi, gave gandasi blows to Surjan Singh which hit<\/p>\n
            him on his right and left legs and on his left arm. As a<\/p>\n
            result, Surjan Singh fell down. Sukhjit Singh gave many<\/p>\n
            blows with his stick to Gurmukh Singh. Kuldip Singh gave<\/p>\n
            many blows with his stick to Mohinder Singh. Karamjit<\/p>\n
            Singh gave many blows with his stick to Jaswant Singh.<\/p>\n
            Jaswinder Singh gave many blows with his stick to<\/p>\n
            Subheg Singh. Kesar Singh gave many blows with his<\/p>\n
            stick to Jagga Singh successively. Gurdev Singh gave<\/p>\n
            the gandasi blows to Gurnam Singh.          Gurnam Singh<\/p>\n
            received many injuries on his person and the blood<\/p>\n
            started coming out of the injuries.      During the       fight<\/p>\n
            Jaswant Singh son of Gurdial Singh, resident of<\/p>\n
            Mehmoodpur, who was armed with 12 bore gun, fired two<\/p>\n
            shots in self defence which hit Balwant Singh son of<\/p>\n
            Waryam Singh, resident of Loh Simbli. Kesar Singh and<\/p>\n
            his sons Jaswinder Singh and Karamjit Singh snatched<\/p>\n
            the 12 bore gun along with licence and papers from<\/p>\n
            Jaswant Singh. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh caused blows<\/p>\n
            with the gandasi. On the Escort 37 tractor and damaged<\/p>\n
            the tractor and the engine. After throwing the diesel on<\/p>\n
            the tyre of the trolly it was burnt. After the occurrence all<\/p>\n
            the accused ran away towards Loh Simbli along with 12<\/p>\n
            bore gun of Jaswant Singh.         They raised alarm but
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
            nobody came to rescue them. Hardev Singh and other<\/p>\n
            accused with an intention to take possession of the land<\/p>\n
            caused to injuries to Surjan Singh and his relatives.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On the basis of statement of complainant formal FIR<\/p>\n
No.53 dated 21.7.1992 was registered by police of Police Station<\/p>\n
Ghanaur.\n<\/p>\n
            Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh along with police<\/p>\n
officials and Hamira Singh came to the place of occurrence. The<\/p>\n
injured persons were removed to Civil Hospital, Rajpura for medical<\/p>\n
treatment. Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh prepared the<\/p>\n
rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The blood stained earth<\/p>\n
was lifted from the spot. Two empty cartridges of 12 bore from the<\/p>\n
spot were also taken in possession. Two cartridges and tractor trolly<\/p>\n
were also taken in possession. Statements of the witnesses were<\/p>\n
recorded.\n<\/p>\n
            Doctor O.P.Goel (PW-1) deposed that on 21.7.1992 at<\/p>\n
about 11.30 a.m. he examined Balwant Singh and found following<\/p>\n
injury on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Multiple mall lacerated on left side of the chest and left<\/p>\n
            upper arm on back of chest. Margins were irregular and<\/p>\n
            black in colour. Kept under observation subject to X-ray<\/p>\n
            and operation notes of the surgeon. There was swelling<\/p>\n
            of eye lid on left side, there was bleeding from left ear.”<\/p>\n
            The said injury was a result of fire arm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On the same day he examined Gurmukh Singh at 11.45
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
a.m. and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of<\/p>\n
              cheek and face. It was bone deep. The wound was<\/p>\n
              bleeding. It was kept under observation subject to X-<\/p>\n
              ray for evidence of injury to underlying bone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5cm x 1.00 cm on top of<\/p>\n
              right shoulder, x-ray was advised for evidence of<\/p>\n
              fracture of underlying bone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Abrasion 5 cm x 0.5 cm on front of right shoulder.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm x 0.3 cm on the left<\/p>\n
              palm and encircling left thenar eminece, x-ray was<\/p>\n
              advised for evidence of fracture of underlying bone and<\/p>\n
              injury to nerves and vessels.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 1.5 cm x 3.00 cm on left thigh<\/p>\n
              upper 1\/3rd lateral aspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6. Lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.00 cm on left<\/p>\n
              parieto occipital     region in front of external occipital<\/p>\n
              protuberance.       It was bleeding.   It was kept under<\/p>\n
              observation subject to x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1cm x 1cm on front of left leg<\/p>\n
              lower 1\/3rd. It was bleeding.     Kept under observation<\/p>\n
              subject to x-ray.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On the next day at about 12.00 noon Gurmukh Singh was<\/p>\n
again medico legally examined and another injury was found on his<\/p>\n
person. The said injury was earlier missed as on the earlier day
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
many injured had been admitted in the hospital at the same time. The<\/p>\n
said injury No.8 found on the person of Gumukh Singh was as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
            8. Multiple lacerated wounds on the back of upper half of<\/p>\n
              chest varying in size from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to<\/p>\n
              0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x0.2 cm.    Margins were irregular and<\/p>\n
              some were blackened. Injuries were kept under<\/p>\n
              observation for evidence of foregoing body.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Injury No.8 was a result of fire arm. Remaining all the<\/p>\n
injuries were simple in nature and were result of blunt weapon.<\/p>\n
            On 22.7.1992 he examined Gurnam Singh at 1.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on front of left leg<\/p>\n
              upper third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm between web space<\/p>\n
              between little and ring finger extending on Palmer and<\/p>\n
              dorsum aspect of hand. It was bleeding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The said injuries were a result of sharp edged weapon<\/p>\n
and were simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
            On the same day he examined Mohinder Singh at 12.00<\/p>\n
noon and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. Lacerated wound on right part of forehead near the<\/p>\n
              outer end of right eye brow 2.5 cm x 1.00 cm x 1.00 cm.<\/p>\n
              X-ray was advised for evidence of x-ray of underlying<\/p>\n
              bone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2. Swelling 10 cm x 10 cm on left fore arm middle x-ray<\/p>\n
              was advised for evidence of x-ray of underlying bone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right<\/p>\n
              leg lower 1\/3rd. It was bleeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm x 1cm on right little finger<\/p>\n
              Palmer aspect, x-ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5. Complained of pain on dorsum of left foot in middle..<\/p>\n
              X-ray was advised for fracture of underlying bone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            6. Complained of pain in chest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The said injuries were a result of blunt weapon. Injuries<\/p>\n
No. 2 and 4 were declared grievous in nature, whereas, the<\/p>\n
remaining injuries were declared simple in nature.<\/p>\n
            On the same day at 12.15 a.m. he examined Jaswant<\/p>\n
Singh and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1.Irregular lacerated wound on scalp 12 cm x 2 cm x bone<\/p>\n
            deep wound starting in midline of fore-head running<\/p>\n
            posteriorly and towards right frontal and parietal region. It<\/p>\n
            was bleeding. Advised x-ray for evidence of fracture of<\/p>\n
            underlying bone and injury to brain.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right<\/p>\n
              part of scalp and parietal region starting in mid line of<\/p>\n
              skull running downwards and towards right parietal<\/p>\n
              region.    It was bleeding. X-ray was advised for<\/p>\n
              evidence of fracture of underlying bone.
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1cm x 1cm on back of right<\/p>\n
              fore arm in the middle third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. Swelling 3 cm in diameter on medical side of right<\/p>\n
              knee.     X-ray was advised for evidence of fracture of<\/p>\n
              underlying bone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5. Reddish blue contusion on front of right elbow and<\/p>\n
              right upper arm 8 cm x 4 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6. Reddish contusion on front of right upper arm 8 cm x 4<\/p>\n
              cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on back of right gluteal<\/p>\n
              region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On 23.7.1992 at 12.00 noon injured Jaswant Singh was<\/p>\n
again examined and the following injury was        also found on his<\/p>\n
person which was considered as injury No.8:-<\/p>\n
            “8.Multiple lacerated wounds on the back of chest, back<\/p>\n
            of upper arm left varying in size from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm x<\/p>\n
            0.2 cm to 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm x0.2 cm. Injury was kept under<\/p>\n
            observation for evidence of foregoing body or injury to<\/p>\n
            underlying lung and pleura”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            All the injuries on his person were declared simple in<\/p>\n
nature. Injury No.8 was a result of fire arm.\n<\/p>\n
            On the same day at 12.30 after noon he medico legally<\/p>\n
examined Subegh Singh and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. Lacerated wound on scalp, more so on right side 12 cm<\/p>\n
              x 3cm x 2.5 cm running antero, posteriorly on top of
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
              scalp. It was bleeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Swelling on left hand. More so on radial aspect X-ray<\/p>\n
              was advised for fracture of underlying bone.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3. Swelling on left elbow joint, more so on lateral aspect.<\/p>\n
              X-ray was advised for evidence of fracture of underlying<\/p>\n
              bone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. Abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm on left deltoid region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            All the injuries were result of blunt weapon. Injury No.1<\/p>\n
was declared grievous in nature, whereas, remaining injuries were<\/p>\n
declared simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
            On the same day at 12.45 p.m. he examined Jagga Singh<\/p>\n
and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left leg.<\/p>\n
              Lower 1\/3rd outer aspect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm on left part of<\/p>\n
              scalp, just above left ear.      X-ray was advised for<\/p>\n
              evidence of fracture of underlying bone. The bone was<\/p>\n
              bleeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            All the injuries were declared simple in nature and were<\/p>\n
result of blunt weapon.\n<\/p>\n
            After reaching A.P.Jain Hospital, Rajpura, Assistant Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector Darshan Singh took in possession M.L.Rs of Gurdev<\/p>\n
Singh, Mohinder Singh, Jaswant Singh, Subheg Singh, Jagga Singh,<\/p>\n
Gurnam Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Mohinder Singh son of Sher
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh.   Surjan Singh was referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala.<\/p>\n
After reaching Rajindera Hospital, he recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
Surjan Singh. On 22.7.1992 injured Surjan Singh died in Rajindera<\/p>\n
Hospital, Patiala. The inquest report with regard to his dead body<\/p>\n
was prepared. Dead body of Surjan Singh was sent for postmortem<\/p>\n
examination.\n<\/p>\n
            Dr.Deepak      Walia (PW-2) conducted the postmortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of Surjan Singh on 22.7.1992 at 3.30<\/p>\n
p.m. and found following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1. A stitched wound 20 cms long with 15 stitches on the<\/p>\n
               anterior surface of the trunk in the middle extending<\/p>\n
               from xiphistornum to umbilicus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. A stitched wound 6 cm long with four stitched in tact on<\/p>\n
               left side of abdomen 6 cm left of mid line and 10 cms<\/p>\n
               left and above of umbilicus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on left side of<\/p>\n
               chest 7 cm medical to left nipple at 9-0′ clock position.<\/p>\n
               Clotted blood was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on left side of<\/p>\n
               chest 6 cm below left nipple of 6-0′ clock position.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on right side of<\/p>\n
               chest 2 cm from right nipple at 2-0′ clock position.<\/p>\n
               Clotted blood was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6. A lacerated wound 3 cm in diameter on right side of<\/p>\n
               abdomen at right coastal margin 11 cm below right
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
              nipple at 5-0′ clock position.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. A lacerated wound 4 mm on front surface of upper<\/p>\n
              1\/3rd of left upper arm. Clotted blood was present.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            8. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on anterior<\/p>\n
              surface of left fore-arm in its upper 1\/3rd. Clotted blood<\/p>\n
              was present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            9. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter 5 cm below injury<\/p>\n
              No.10.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            10. A stitched wound 4 cm long within 3 stitched on the<\/p>\n
              back of left thumb.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            11. A lacerated wound 4 cm long on back of left little<\/p>\n
              finger within 3 stitched present underlying bone<\/p>\n
              fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            12. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on ant-surface<\/p>\n
              of left thigh in its upper third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            13. A lacerated wound 3 mm in diameter on ant-surface<\/p>\n
              of right thigh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            14. An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the anterior surface<\/p>\n
              of right leg in its upper 1\/3rd bone deep.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            15. An incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on ant-surface of right<\/p>\n
              leg 12 cm below injury No.14, underlying bones tibia<\/p>\n
              fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            16. An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the anterior surface<\/p>\n
              of right leg lower one third.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on upper 1\/3rd of left
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
                 leg bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            18. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on middle 1\/3rd of left<\/p>\n
                 leg on its ant-surface bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            19. An incised wound 1-1\/2 cm x 1 cm on ant-surface of<\/p>\n
                 left leg 6 cm below injury No.18.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            20. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on right supra scapular<\/p>\n
                 region muscle deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            21. A stitched wound 3 cm long with 3 stitches on the<\/p>\n
                 back of right middle finger of right hand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and cause of<\/p>\n
death was a result of multiple injuries suffered by the deceased<\/p>\n
which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.<\/p>\n
            The accused were arrested and after completion of<\/p>\n
investigation all the accused were sent up for trial.<\/p>\n
            Charge against the accused was framed under Sections<\/p>\n
148, 302, 325, 323\/149, 427,435 IPC.            Charge was also framed<\/p>\n
under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to as ‘the Act’) against accused Hardev Singh.           Charge was also<\/p>\n
framed under Section 382 IPC against accused Jaswinder Singh<\/p>\n
and Karamjit Singh. Accused did not plead guilty to the charge and<\/p>\n
claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
            At the trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution<\/p>\n
examined 17 witnesses.         After the close of prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
accused Hardev Singh, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
prayed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
            “I am innocent. I and my son Sh.Sukhjit Singh had no<\/p>\n
            concern with the land in dispute in July, 1992. My brother<\/p>\n
            Sh.Gurdev Singh and his sons Sh.Harminder Singh @<\/p>\n
            Mohinder Singh and Sh.Kuldip Singh along with my<\/p>\n
            brother Sh.Kesar Singh             and his sons Sh.Jaswinder<\/p>\n
            Singh, Karamjit Singh and Sh.Jagjit Singh were in<\/p>\n
            possession of the land in dispute and they were in its<\/p>\n
            physical cultivating possession since long. Civil litigation<\/p>\n
            regarding land in dispute was going on between<\/p>\n
            Smt.Jangir Kaur w\/o Sh.Mehma Singh and Smt.Kartar<\/p>\n
            Kaur w\/o Sh.Ishar Singh since long.           The complainant<\/p>\n
            party   suspected       that   I   was   helping   my   brothers<\/p>\n
            Sh.Gurdev Singh and Kesar Singh and their sons in the<\/p>\n
            said litigation. I and my son Sh.Sukhjit Singh have been<\/p>\n
            falsely implicated in the case on that account.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        I was working as Gunman in Allahabad Bank<\/p>\n
            at village Loh Simbli. My lincenced Gun was taken away<\/p>\n
            by the police from the said Bank and the same has been<\/p>\n
            falsely planted in the case. I was arrested by the police<\/p>\n
            on 22.7.1992, but my arrested was shown later on<\/p>\n
            according to the suitability of the police. I and my son<\/p>\n
            Sh.Sukhjit Singh are innocent and have been falsely<\/p>\n
            implicated in the case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The other accused also took up the similar pleas when<\/p>\n
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
            In their defence accused examined Rajinder Kumar (DW-<\/p>\n
1) and Navdeep Gupta (DW-2).\n<\/p>\n
            Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution version so<\/p>\n
far as accused Hardev Singh @ Haiba, Gurdev Singh and Kuldip<\/p>\n
Singh are concerned and convicted and sentenced them under<\/p>\n
Sections 302\/325\/34 IPC. Accused Hardev Singh @ Haiba was also<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 27 of the Act. The remaining accused were<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued<\/p>\n
that the trial Court had erred in convicting and sentencing the<\/p>\n
accused vide the impugned judgment and order. Accused were in<\/p>\n
possession of the property in question.        In fact, it was the<\/p>\n
complainant party, who had come to the spot and had fired two<\/p>\n
shots. Balwant Singh from the accused party had suffered injuries.<\/p>\n
The complainant party had suffered injuries in the exercise of self<\/p>\n
defence by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued<\/p>\n
that six persons had suffered injuries from the complainant side and<\/p>\n
one person had died.        It was evident from Exhibit PW9\/A that<\/p>\n
possession of the land had been handed over to Surjan Singh in the<\/p>\n
presence of the SHO Police Station Ghanaur, Patwari Halqa<\/p>\n
Lohsimbli, Chowkidar Harpalpur by the Field Kanoongo Ghanaur.<\/p>\n
Complainant party was cultivating the land in question on the alleged<\/p>\n
day of occurrence, when the accused came to the spot armed with
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                            16<\/span><\/p>\n
deadly weapons and attacked the complainant party.<\/p>\n
            Present case rests on an eye witness account.<\/p>\n
            Case of the complainant party is that while they were<\/p>\n
sowing seeds of charri,        accused party armed with respective<\/p>\n
weapons came to the spot and opened their attack. Hardev Singh<\/p>\n
fired two shots, whereas, other accused armed with their respective<\/p>\n
weapons inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party.<\/p>\n
Case of the accused party on the other hand is that, in fact, they<\/p>\n
were in possession of the suit property and had been attacked by the<\/p>\n
complainant party.\n<\/p>\n
            Exhibit PW9\/A is the material document as per which<\/p>\n
possession of the land in question was handed over to the<\/p>\n
complainant party in the presence of police on 13.3.1992. A perusal<\/p>\n
of the same reveals that price of the standing crop was assessed<\/p>\n
and it was ordered by the Field Kanoongo Ghanaur that Rs. 27,000\/-<\/p>\n
will be paid as compensation to Harminder Singh and others. In case<\/p>\n
the compensation was not deposited then Harminder Singh and<\/p>\n
others would be entitled to their share in the crop. However,<\/p>\n
possession at the spot was delivered to Jagir Kaur and Kartar Kaur<\/p>\n
through Surjan Singh. Munadi was effected through chowkidar of the<\/p>\n
village with regard to possession and the possession was delivered<\/p>\n
peacefully. From this it is evident that complainant party was in<\/p>\n
possession of the property in question on the alleged day of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The fact that compensation amount was not paid by the<\/p>\n
complainant party regarding the standing crop does not lead to the
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
inference that the possession of the land remained with the accused<\/p>\n
party as the same had been handed over to Jagir Kaur and Kartar<\/p>\n
Kaur on 13.3.1992, whereas, the occurrence in this case had taken<\/p>\n
place on 21.7.1992.      Exhibit DGG is a copy of an application in<\/p>\n
execution proceedings initiated on 7.11.1991 wherein it was prayed<\/p>\n
that the amount of mesne profits as mentioned in the application be<\/p>\n
recovered from the judgment debtors by attachment and sale of their<\/p>\n
properties.   It was also prayed that delivery of actual physical<\/p>\n
possession of the land along with crop standing on it may be got<\/p>\n
delivered to the decree holders. The said application is only signed<\/p>\n
by the counsel for Jagir Kaur and others and is not signed by the<\/p>\n
decree holders. Apparently, the said application was filed before the<\/p>\n
standing crop had been harvested. This application might have been<\/p>\n
filed by the counsel under misapprehension that the possession of<\/p>\n
the land had not been given to the decree holders vide order dated<\/p>\n
13.3.1992, whereas, in fact, possession had been given to the<\/p>\n
decree holders vide order Exhibit PW9\/A dated 13.3.1992 and only<\/p>\n
compensation qua the standing crops had been assessed in favour<\/p>\n
of   Harminder Singh and others.     The pendency of the execution<\/p>\n
proceedings on the day of occurrence would also not lead to the<\/p>\n
inference that the actual possession on the day of occurrence with<\/p>\n
regard to the property in question was not with the complainant party.<\/p>\n
Hence, we are not impressed with the argument raised by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants that the accused were in possession of the<\/p>\n
property in question.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                                  18<\/span><\/p>\n
            Appellants had come to the spot armed with deadly<\/p>\n
weapons on the day of occurrence and had inflicted injuries on the<\/p>\n
person of complainant party. Appellant Hardev Singh was armed<\/p>\n
with 12 bore gun, whereas, appellant Gurdev Singh was armed with<\/p>\n
a gandasi and appellant Kuldip Singh was armed with a dang. Seven<\/p>\n
persons suffered injuries from the complainant side and out of them<\/p>\n
Surjan Singh succumbed to his injuries on 22.7.1992.<\/p>\n
            Appellant Gurdev Singh had allegedly inflicted injuries<\/p>\n
with the gandasi on the person of Gurnam Singh. The trial Court<\/p>\n
had erred in holding that Gurdev Singh had inflicted injuries on the<\/p>\n
person of deceased Surjan Singh, whereas, as per the ocular<\/p>\n
evidence Gurdev Singh had only inflicted injuries on the person of<\/p>\n
Gurnam Singh. Injured Gurnam Singh was given up at the trial by the<\/p>\n
learned public prosecutor as having been won over by the accused.<\/p>\n
As such an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the<\/p>\n
prosecution. As per the medical opinion injuries on the person of<\/p>\n
Gurnam     Singh    were   declared   simple   in   nature.   In    these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the presence of appellant Gurdev Singh at the spot is<\/p>\n
doubtful and he is liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n
             As per the ocular version appellant Hardev Singh had<\/p>\n
fired two shots from his gun which had hit Surjan Singh on his chest,<\/p>\n
abdomen and other parts of his body. Appellant Kuldip Singh gave<\/p>\n
dang blows on the person of Mohinder Singh (PW-6). So far as both<\/p>\n
these appellants are concerned, prosecution had been successful in<\/p>\n
proving its case against them. The prosecution version against them
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
is supported by the ocular evidence which is duly corroborated by the<\/p>\n
medical evidence. Mohinder Singh (PW-6) has duly proved the<\/p>\n
injuries inflicted on his person by appellant Kuldip Singh. As per the<\/p>\n
medical evidence the injuries on the person of Mohinder Singh (PW-<\/p>\n
6) were a result of blunt weapon and two out of seven injuries<\/p>\n
suffered by him were declared grievous in nature. Both the<\/p>\n
appellants had come to the spot armed with their respective weapons<\/p>\n
and had used them at the time of occurrence. This leads to the<\/p>\n
inference that they had come to the spot sharing a common intention<\/p>\n
to commit the alleged crime. The statements of the eye witnesses<\/p>\n
with regard to the involvement of appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip<\/p>\n
Singh inspire confidence. Presence of eye witness Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
cannot be doubted at the spot as he had suffered injuries in the<\/p>\n
occurrence. In a case of an eye witness account motive more or<\/p>\n
less loses its significance. There is no un-explained delay in lodging<\/p>\n
the FIR. The occurrence had taken place at about 7\/7.30 a.m. on<\/p>\n
21.7.1992. It was natural for the eye witnesses to get the injured<\/p>\n
treated first and, thereafter, lodge the FIR.    The statement of the<\/p>\n
complainant was recorded at 9.50 a.m. on 21.7.1992. Thus, there is<\/p>\n
no unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
            We have gone through the entire evidence on record and<\/p>\n
are of the opinion that appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip Singh<\/p>\n
were rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Judge vide<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and order, whereas, appellant Gurdev Singh is<\/p>\n
liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
\n Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
            Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed qua appellant<\/p>\n
Gurdev Singh and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.<\/p>\n
So far as appeal qua appellants Hardev Singh and Kuldip Singh is<\/p>\n
concerned, the same is dismissed and their conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
as ordered by the trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order are<\/p>\n
upheld.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (SABINA)
\n                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                            (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n
November 14, 2008
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.531-DB of 1998 Date of decision: 14.11.2008 Hardev Singh and others ……Appellants Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - 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\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-12T03:47:57+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-12T03:47:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4291,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-12T03:47:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - 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\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-12T03:47:57+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-12T03:47:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008"},"wordCount":4291,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008","name":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-12T03:47:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-and-others-vs-state-of-punjab-on-14-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/218516","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=218516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}