{"id":223990,"date":"1996-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996"},"modified":"2017-05-08T05:47:19","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T00:17:19","slug":"paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","title":{"rendered":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.P.Kurdukar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, S.P. Kurdukar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPARAMJIT SINGH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/12\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t       THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996<br \/>\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t     Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee<br \/>\n\t     Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar<br \/>\nDr. B.L.  Wadhera, M.A.\t Chinnasamy, Devender P.Singh, Advs.<br \/>\nfor the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ranbir Yadav, Adv. for R.S. Suri, Adv. for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.P.KURDUKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This Criminal  Appeal under Section 19 of Terrorist and<br \/>\nDisruptive Activities  (Prevention)  Act,  1987\t (for  short<br \/>\n`TADA&#8217;) is  filed by  the appellants accused challenging the<br \/>\nlegality and  correctness of the impugned judgment and order<br \/>\nof convictions\tdated 15th  February, 1996  passed by  Addl.<br \/>\nJudge,\tDesignated   Court,  District\tJail,  Nabha,  under<br \/>\nSections 302\/34\t and 397  of the  Indian Penal\tCode as also<br \/>\nunder Section 3 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The prosecution  story as\tunfolded at  the trial is as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Jagjit  Singh,  SHO  (PW  6)  attached  to\t the  police<br \/>\nstation, Sadar,\t on 22-3-1991  was posted on patrolling duty<br \/>\nin the jurisdiction of Bahadurgarh Town alongwith constables<br \/>\nMohinder Singh\t(PS 4),\t Sohan Singh  and Madan\t Lal (PW 5).<br \/>\nWhile they  were on  duty near\tthe gate  of Escort &amp; Soetze<br \/>\nFactory, Bahadurgarh,  Paramjit Singh (A-1) and Satnam Singh<br \/>\n(A-2) came there and told that they intended to have room on<br \/>\nrent and  for that  purpose  they  requested  Sukhdev  Singh<br \/>\n(since deceased)  to accompany them so that they will have a<br \/>\ndrink and  then find  out the  suitable room on rent. Saying<br \/>\nso, according  to the  prosecution,  both  the\taccused\t and<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh  left in the direction of Mandirwali Pulli. It<br \/>\nis alleged  by the prosecution that one gentleman on bicycle<br \/>\ninformed Mohinder Singh (PW 4) and Madan Lal (PW 5) who were<br \/>\non patrolling  duty that  a person in the police uniform was<br \/>\nlying  in   an\tinjured\t condition  near  Mandirwali  Pulli.<br \/>\nThereafter, Jagjit  Singh, SHO\t(PW 6)\twent to the place of<br \/>\noccurrence and\tfound Sukhdev  Singh was lying with bleeding<br \/>\ninjuries. Upon\tinquiry, Sukhdev  Singh told  him  that\t A-2<br \/>\nfired at  him  through\this  revolver  and  thereafter\tthey<br \/>\nescaped with  his service stengun. The detailed statement of<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh  (since deceased)\t was then recorded by Jagjit<br \/>\nSingh, SHO  (PW 6)  and marked\tas Ex.PD\/1.  On the basis of<br \/>\nthis statement, a crime was registered under Sections 307\/34<br \/>\nIPC; 3,4,5  and 6  of TADA  and 25  of the Arms Act. Sukhdev<br \/>\nSingh was  then shifted\t to Rajendera  Hospital, Patiala for<br \/>\nmedical treatment. During investigation, blood stained earth<br \/>\nwas collected  from the\t spot in  a small  tin box and after<br \/>\nsealing the  same, it  was sent\t to the\t Chemical  Analyser.<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh,\twhile  in  the\thospital  succumbed  to\t his<br \/>\ninjuries on  2nd May,  1991. Dr. Jagjit Kumar (PW 9) carried<br \/>\nout the\t post mortem  examination and  his report  is at Ex.<br \/>\nPB\/1. It  is noticed  from the\trecord that both the accused<br \/>\nwere arrested  on 25th April, 1991 in another crime and were<br \/>\nshown to  have been  arrested in  the present  crime on 28th<br \/>\nApril, 1991.  After completing\tthe investigation,  both the<br \/>\naccused were  put up  for trial\t for the offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Sections\t302\/\/307\/382\/394\/397\/34 of  the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode as\t also under  Section 25\t of the\t Arms Act  and under<br \/>\nSections 3,4,5 and 6 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The appellants  accused denied the accusations leavened<br \/>\nagainst them  and claimed  to be  tried. According  to them,<br \/>\nthey have  been falsely\t implicated because  of enmity. They<br \/>\ndenied to  have met Sukhdev Singh, Mohinder Singh (PW 4) and<br \/>\nMadan Lal  (PW 5)  on 22nd  March, 1991 or requested Sukhdev<br \/>\nSingh to accompany them for a drink and to search out a room<br \/>\non rent.  They pleaded\tthat they  are innocent\t and they be<br \/>\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   At the  outset,  it  may  be  stated  that\t the  entire<br \/>\nprosecution case  rested  on  circumstantial  evidence.\t The<br \/>\nprosecution,   principally,    relied\tupon\ttwo    vital<br \/>\ncircumstances, (1)  Sukhdev Singh  was\tlast  seen  together<br \/>\nalive going  alongwith both the accused and (2) statement of<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh  Ex.PD\/1. In  addition to\t the above,  it also<br \/>\nrelief upon the evidence of formal witnesses and the medical<br \/>\nevidence to prove the cause of death.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The Addl. Judge, Designated Court, on appraisal of oral<br \/>\nand documentary evidence on record held that the prosecution<br \/>\nproved both the vital circumstances mentioned hereinabove as<br \/>\nalso  other   circumstances  which  complete  the  chain  of<br \/>\ncircumstantial evidence. Consistent with these findings, the<br \/>\nTrial Court  convicted A-2  under Section  302 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code  whereas A-1\t under Section\t302\/34 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal  Code  and  sentenced  each  one\tof  them  to  suffer<br \/>\nimprisonment for  life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in<br \/>\ndefault RI  for one  year. Both\t the  appellants  were\talso<br \/>\nconvicted under\t Section 397  of the  Indian Penal  Code and<br \/>\nwere sentenced\tto suffer  RI for  seven years\tand to pay a<br \/>\nfine of\t Rs. 2500\/-  and in  default six months RI. Both the<br \/>\naccused were also convicted under Section 3 of TADA and each<br \/>\nof them\t was awarded  imprisonment for five years and a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.\t2500\/-\tor  in\tdefault\t six  month&#8217;s  RI.  All\t the<br \/>\nsubstantive sentences  were ordered to run concurrently. Out<br \/>\nof the amount of fine as and when realised, half of it shall<br \/>\nbe paid\t to the widow of Sukhdev Singh. Aggrieved by paid to<br \/>\nthe widow  of Sukhdev  Singh. Aggrieved\t by  this  order  of<br \/>\nconviction and\tsentence, the  appellants have preferred the<br \/>\nappeal under Section 19 of TADA to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Before we\tdeal with these two important circumstances,<br \/>\nit may be stated that learned counsel for the appellants did<br \/>\nnot  and   could  not  seriously  challenge  the  fact\tthat<br \/>\nSutskhdev Singh\t met with  a homicidal death. We, therefore,<br \/>\ndo not\tthink it necessary to set out in detail the evidence<br \/>\nof Dr.\tJagjit Kumar (PW 9) who held the autopsy on the dead<br \/>\nbody  of   Sukhdev  Singh   and\t prepared  the\tpost  mortem<br \/>\nexamination report  Ex.PB\/1.  Suffice  it  to  mention\tthat<br \/>\naccording to  Dr. Jagjit  Kumar, Sukhdev  Singh sustained as<br \/>\nmany as five injuries, of which, spinal injury was caused by<br \/>\nfire arm  and the  cause of  death was shock due to the said<br \/>\nspinal injury.\tAll these  injuries were  ante\tmortem.\t The<br \/>\nspinal injury  was possible  with shotgun  since there\twere<br \/>\npellets. During the cross-examination, he stated that bullet<br \/>\ncomes out  of revolver,\t stengun and  pistol whereas pellets<br \/>\nare from shotguns. In view of this medical evidence, we have<br \/>\nno hesitation  in upholding  the finding  of the Trial Court<br \/>\nthat Sukhdev  Singh died  a homicidal death. We, accordingly<br \/>\ndo so.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Coming to the vital vital circumstance, namely, Sukhdev<br \/>\nSingh was  last seen  alive in the company of the appellants<br \/>\nand in order to prove this fact, prosecution strongly relied<br \/>\nupon the evidence of Mohinder Singh (PW 4) and Madan Lal, PC<br \/>\n(PW 5).\t Both the  witnesses undoubtedly stated on oath that<br \/>\non 22nd\t March, 1991,  when they  were\ton  patrolling\tduty<br \/>\nalongwith Sukhdev  Singh,  the\tappellants  came  and  asked<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh  to come\talongwith them to find out a room on<br \/>\nrent and  also share  a drink. Saying so, Sukhdev Singh left<br \/>\nthe patrolling\tduty and  went alongwith  the appellants. We<br \/>\nhave gone  through the evidence of both these witnesses very<br \/>\ncarefully and  we do  not feel it safe to accept the same as<br \/>\ncredible one.  The main reason for discarding their evidence<br \/>\nis that\t their statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. came<br \/>\nto be  recorded on  8th August,\t 1991 after about four and a<br \/>\nhalf months.  No explanation  whatsoever was  given  by\t the<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer  Gurmeet Singh (PW 11) as to why their<br \/>\nstatements  could   not\t be  recorded  earlier.\t Both  these<br \/>\nwitnesses were members of the patrolling duty and even after<br \/>\nknowing\t that  on  22nd\t March,\t 1991,\tSukhdev\t Singh\tleft<br \/>\nalongwith the appellants and was admitted in the hospital in<br \/>\nan injured  condition, they  did not  come forward  to\ttell<br \/>\nabout this  fact. It  is in  these circumstances,  we do not<br \/>\nfeel  it  safe\tto  accept  their  evidence  on\t this  vital<br \/>\ncircumstance, namely,  Sukhdev Singh  was last seen alive in<br \/>\nthe company of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The next  circumstance  strongly  relied  upon  by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution to\tprove the  complicity of both the appellants<br \/>\nwas the\t alleged dying\tdeclaration Ex.PD\/1 of Sukhdev Singh<br \/>\nrecorded by  SHO Jagjit\t Singh (PW  6) on  22nd March,\t1991<br \/>\nbetween 8.30  and 9.00\tp.m. Jagjit  Singh (PW\t6) testified<br \/>\nthat on 22nd March, 1991, he was posted as an Inspector\/SHO,<br \/>\nPolice Station\tSadar Patiala  and on that day, he alongwith<br \/>\nSI Kuldip Singh and other police officials were going in the<br \/>\narea  of   Bahadurgarh,\t Seel\troad,  in   connection\twith<br \/>\npatrolling duty\t and investigation  of a  case\tbearing\t FIR<br \/>\nNo.76\/91, PS  Sadar Patiala.  He saw Sukhdev Singh, HC in an<br \/>\ninjured condition  lying on  the road side. He lifted him by<br \/>\ngiving support\tand made  inquiries. Sukhdev  Singh made the<br \/>\nstatement Ex.PD\/1  which he  recorded and forwarded the same<br \/>\nto the\tSadar  Police  Station\tfor  recording\tformal\tFIR.<br \/>\nAccordingly, an FIR was registered Ex.PD\/2. Sukhdev Singh in<br \/>\nhis statement Ex.PD\/1 stated that when he was posted at PAP,<br \/>\nBahadurgarh as\tHawaldar and  was on patrolling duty on 22nd<br \/>\nMarch, 1991  alongwith C.Mohinder Singh (PW 4) and Madan Lal<br \/>\nPC (PW\t5) at  about 8.00  p.m., Paramjit  Singh  (A-1)\t and<br \/>\nSatnam Singh  (A-2) came  near the gate of Escort and Goetze<br \/>\nFactory, Bahadurgarh,  whom, he\t was knowing  earlier.\tThey<br \/>\ntold him  that if  he needed  a room  on  hire,\t they  would<br \/>\nprovide the  same and  they would  sit somewhere to have the<br \/>\nsnacks. Accordingly, he went alongwith them to Seel Road and<br \/>\nwhen they  reached near\t Mandirwali Puli,  A-2 took  out the<br \/>\nrevolver from  his dub and fired at him. He sustained a fire<br \/>\narm injuries  and fell\tdown. Thereafter,  A-1 and  A-2 took<br \/>\naway his  stengun No.  20261, Batt No. 86, two magazines and<br \/>\ncartridges and\tran away. He was lying for long time. No one<br \/>\ncame to\t him due  to fire  arm injury  sustained by him. The<br \/>\nmarket was  already closed but the outer lights of the shops<br \/>\nwere on.  A-1 and A-2 in connivance with each other with the<br \/>\nintention to  kill him\tand snatch  the arms  and ammunition<br \/>\nbrought him  at the place of occurrence and fired at him. He<br \/>\nwas unable  to\tsign  as  his  hands  were  shrinking.\tThis<br \/>\ncomplaint be recorded and action be taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Jagjit Singh  (PW 6)  in his  evidence stated  that  he<br \/>\nrecorded the statement of Sukhdev Singh in his own words and<br \/>\nsince  his   injuries  were  bleeding,\the  was\t shifted  to<br \/>\nRajendera Hospital,  Patiala. On  the way,  he\tbecame\tsemi<br \/>\nunconscious and did not regain consciousness till he died on<br \/>\n2nd May, 1991. Dr. R.P. Jindal (PW 3) who was then Registrar<br \/>\nat Rajendera  Hospital, Patiala,  examined Sukhdev Singh and<br \/>\ngave the necessary medical treatment. AS regards the entries<br \/>\nin  the\t medical  papers  at  Rajendera\t Hospital,  separate<br \/>\nreference would\t be made  in a short while. This witness was<br \/>\ncross-examined at  great length\t and after going through his<br \/>\nevidence and  the contents of the dying declaration Ex.PD\/1,<br \/>\nneither the  said evidence  nor the  contents of  the  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration inspire  confidence in  us to accept the same as<br \/>\ncredible and  truthful. Jagjit\tSingh (PW 6) admitted in his<br \/>\nevidence that  after  recording\t the  dying  declaration  of<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh,\the became semi unconscious and was unable to<br \/>\nspeak. He  further admitted  that  he  did  not\t record\t his<br \/>\nremarks on the dying declaration that the maker was in a fit<br \/>\ncondition to  make such a statement. Dr. Jagjit Kumar (PW 9)<br \/>\nhad stated that Sukhdev Singh had sustained pellet injury on<br \/>\nhis spinal  cord. Having  regard to the medical evidence and<br \/>\nthe admission  of Jagjit  Singh (PW  6) that after recording<br \/>\nthe dying  declaration Ex.PD\/1,\t Sukhdev Singh\tbecame\tsemi<br \/>\nunconscious, it\t would\tbe  totally  unsafe  to\t accept\t the<br \/>\ntestimony of  this witness to hold that Sukhdev Singh was in<br \/>\na fit condition to make the dying declaration. Moreover, the<br \/>\ncontents and  the manner  in which  all minor  details\twere<br \/>\nalleged to  have been  given by the injured Sukhdev Singh in<br \/>\nhis dying  declaration does  not inspire confidence in us to<br \/>\naccept it  as truthful.\t For instance, the dying declaration<br \/>\napart from  giving the\tnames  of  his\ttwo  colleagues,  it<br \/>\nmentioned their\t buckle numbers and how he was tempted to go<br \/>\nalongwith both\tthe appellants.\t The maker  despite  such  a<br \/>\nserious injury\tto the spinal cord mentioned the stengun No.<br \/>\n20261 including\t Batt No.86.  We have  very  carefully\tgone<br \/>\nthrough the  dying declaration\tEx.PD\/1 and we are satisfied<br \/>\nthat the  said document\t cannot be  accepted as a true dying<br \/>\ndeclaration of\tSukhdev Singh and we will not be unjustified<br \/>\nif  we\tcall  it  a  &#8220;concocted\t document.&#8221;  If\t this  dying<br \/>\ndeclaration Ex.PD\/1  is left  out of consideration, there is<br \/>\nhardly any  evidence to\t connect  the  appellants  with\t the<br \/>\npresent crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Coming to the entries in the medical papers and the bed<br \/>\nhead ticket at Rajendera Hospital, what surprises us was the<br \/>\nentry made on these papers as &#8220;accidental&#8221;. It is not at one<br \/>\nplace such  an &#8220;accidental&#8221; entry was made but also at three<br \/>\nother places.  Dr. R.P.\t Jindal (PW 3), Registrar, Rajendera<br \/>\nHospital, Patiala,  had stated\tthat he\t did not  make these<br \/>\nentries but  he was  also unable  to account  for the  same.<br \/>\nSurprisingly, the  learned Trial  Judge\t Expected  that\t the<br \/>\nappellants were\t supposed to  give explanation as to how the<br \/>\nentry &#8220;accidental&#8221;  was made  in  the  medical\tpapers.\t The<br \/>\nentire approach\t of the\t learned  Trial\t Judge\twas  totally<br \/>\nerroneous on  this aspect  and no  explanation whatsoever in<br \/>\nthis behalf could have been expected from the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  We have  gone through the judgment of the learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge as  well as  other materials  on\trecord\tand  we\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied that\tthe prosecution\t has failed  to\t prove\tboth<br \/>\nthese vital  circumstances and reluctantly the conviction of<br \/>\nthe accused cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  For the  foregoing conclusions,  we  allow\t the  appeal<br \/>\nfiled by  the appellants. The impugned judgment and order of<br \/>\nconviction passed  by the  Addl.  Judge,  Designated  Court,<br \/>\nDistrict Jail,\tNabha, on  15th February,  1996, in Sessions<br \/>\nCase No.  250 of  12th September,  1991 is  quashed and\t set<br \/>\naside and  both the  appellants are  acquitted\tof  all\t the<br \/>\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Vide our  order dated  8th November,  1996, we directed<br \/>\nthat the appellants be released forthwith if not required in<br \/>\nany other  case. It  is, therefore,  not necessary  to\tpass<br \/>\nseparate order in this regard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 Author: S.P.Kurdukar Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, S.P. Kurdukar PETITIONER: PARAMJIT SINGH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/1996 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 10TH DAY OF [&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-223990","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>Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - 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\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-08T00:17:19+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\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T00:17:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2390,\"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\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\",\"name\":\"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T00:17:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - 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\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-08T00:17:19+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\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996","datePublished":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T00:17:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996"},"wordCount":2390,"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\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996","name":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T00:17:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-singh-ors-vs-the-state-of-punjab-ors-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paramjit Singh &amp; Ors vs The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors on 10 December, 1996"}]},{"@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\/223990","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=223990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}