{"id":232538,"date":"2006-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006"},"modified":"2017-07-05T05:57:28","modified_gmt":"2017-07-05T00:27:28","slug":"ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  142 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRanjit Singh AND Co.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Five appellants, namely, Rajit Singh, Santokh Singh, Roshan kaur, Vir Kaur
\nand Bimla Kaur are before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
\njudgment and order dated 2.3.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 282\/2000, whereby and
\nwhereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional
\nSessions Judge, Jallandhar On 23.5.2000 in Sessions Case No. 44\/1999 was
\naffirmed.\n<\/p>\n
Appellants before us, together with Dalip Singh, elder brother-in-law of
\nthe deceased as also her husband Hari Singh, were tried for commission of
\nan offence of murdering Harbhajan Kaur on 21.8.1997 at about 7.30 a.m.
\nBefore we advert to the factual matrix involved in this appeal, we may
\nnotice that whereas the aforementioned Ranjit Singh and Dilip Singh have
\nsince expired, Hari Singh husband of the deceased has been acquitted by the
\nHigh Court upon grant of benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case rests on the dying declarations made by the deceased,
\nthe first of which was recorded by Onkar Singh, Investigating Officer on
\n21.8.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. the said dying declaration was treated to be
\nthe first information report and on the basis thereof investigation
\ncommenced. As we would have to consider the aforesaid dying declaration for
\nthe purpose of appreciation of evidence in this case, we would do better to
\ntake not of the same:\n<\/p>\n
“I am resident of Mithu Basti and am doing domestic work. My husband is
\nworking in a factory. I have two sons named Mohinder Pal and Amar Pal and a
\ndaughter named Rupinder Kaur. Today in the morning I had sent my children
\nto school after preparing meals. It was about 7-1\/2 O’ Clock in the
\nmorning. I was setting my clothes in the room then my father-in-law
\nsprinkled kerosene oil from a stove on me and my mother-in-law Rooshan Kaur
\nand my sister-in-law Vir Kaur     W\/o Dilip Singh, Bilma Kaur W\/o Santokh
\nSingh and brother of my husband namely Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh caught
\nhold of me and mother-in-law Roshan Kaur set me ablaze with a match stick.
\nMy husband at the time had gone to the toilet. All of them with intention
\nto kill me have set me ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on me. My body was
\nbadly charred. My husband and his aunt (sister of mother -in-law) namely
\nPathani brought me to the hospital and got me admitted there. All the above
\nsaid persons keeping quarrel with me and they used to pick up quarrel with
\nme on every lame excuse. I was married in 1984 and since then they had been
\nharassing me but my husband never harassed me.”\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that the dying declaration was also made before Smt.
\nPreeti Sahni, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala. The said dying
\ndeclaration was recorded on 22.8.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Yesterday, about 8 A.M. There was a quarrel in our family. Prior
\n\tto this also there remained of and tension in our house. Our family
\n\tis residing as joint family. Our younger brother and one elder
\n\tbrother of my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law also
\n\tresiding with us. Yesterday, at 8 A.M. In the morning my husband
\n\thas a quarrel with me and he asked me to go away and there are many
\n\tlike you. My in-laws were always harassing me over the matter of
\n\tdowry and used to quarrel with me on lame excuse. At that time of
\n\tquarrel I asked my husband as to where I have to go to finish the
\n\tquarrel I went in the room and started gathering the clothes.
\n\tTherefore my mother-in-law Roshan Kaur came and followed my sister-
\n\tin-law Bimla Kaur, Vir Kaur (wives of younger and elder brothers of
\n\tmy husband) also came. My father-in-law Ranjit Singh, younger and
\n\telder brother of my husband also came. My mother-in-law sprinkled
\n\tkerosene oil on me. All the men were helping my mother-in-law. Then
\n\tmy mother-in-law set ablaze with a match stick,. My husband at the
\n\ttime was sitting in a latrine, what he did not say anthing. He new
\n\teverything. Then I did raised alarm of `Bachao, `Bachao’, but none
\n\theard me. My children had gone to school at that time. Then on
\n\traising alarm by many people gathered from neighborhood. My
\n\tneighborhood informed my parents about this. My parents are
\n\tresiding in a Basti Nau Jalandhar. My aunt (sister of my mother-in-
\n\tlaw) brought me to hospital. None of my in-laws came here. It is my
\n\tmother-in-law who set me ablaze and my husband, father-in-law,
\n\telder and younger brother of my husband and Dalip Singh and Santokh
\n\tSingh and their wives and also with them and join this plan and all
\n\tof them were present at home. All of them used to harass me over
\n\tdowry.”\n<\/p>\n
Before proceeding further in the matter we may notice that before the
\nsecond dying declaration was recorded, an attempt was made also to record
\nthe dying declaration of the deceased by the Judicial Magistrate on
\n21.8.1997, but as the condition of the deceased was not such so as to
\nenable her to make any statement, the same could not be recorded. We may,
\nat this stage, notice that an oral dying declaration was also made by the
\ndeceased before her brother Harbhajan Singh who examined himself as PW-7.
\nThe defence has examined one Gurmukh Singh (DW-4) to show that a dying
\ndeclaration was also made before him by the deceased to the effect that she
\ngot burn injuries from an accident.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court relied fully on the
\naforementioned dying declarations to arrive at their respective findings in
\ntheir judgments of conviction and sentence as noticed hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of the
\nappeal, raised the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
(1) A perusal of the dying declarations, which were recorded by the
\nInvestigating officer and by the Judicial Magistrate, would establish that
\nshe was tutored and in any event there were possibilities of tutoring the
\ndeceased and in that view of the matter the same should not have been
\nrelied upon.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The deceased having all along been under the treatment of Dr. Kuldip
\nSingh, who examined himself as PW-3, there was absolutely no reason as to
\nwhy certificate in regard to the physical and mental condition of the
\ndeceased was obtained from Dr. Rupinder Kaur (Pw-12).\n<\/p>\n
(3) Evidence of Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) is not at all reliable in so far as
\nhe had improved his story of introducing the purported harassment meted out
\nto the deceased for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry which was not
\neven stated by the deceased in her dying declaration.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tPW-7 was inimically disposed towards one of the accused, as he had
\ntaken a loan of Rs. 35.000 from him.\n<\/p>\n
(5) The investigation carried out by the Investigation Officer was not a
\nfair one inasmuch as he merely recovered a stove from the place of
\noccurrence but failed to take any photograph of the place of occurrence,
\nfailed to seize any burnt pieces of clothes and also failed to record the
\nstatements of the neighbourers as also Gurmukh Singh (DW-4).\n<\/p>\n
(6) The learned Sessions Judge although was of the opinion that the second
\ndying declaration was not truthful, but despite the same, wrongly proceeded
\nto rely upon the first dying declaration to convict and sentence the
\nappellants before us. In this connection our attention has also been drawn
\nto the judgment of the High Court wherein, despite noticing the
\ninconsistencies in the two dying declarations, the High Court opined that
\nthe conviction of the appellants would be permissible in law as their
\ninvolvement in the occurrence is proved.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported
\nthe judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The deceased was running a shop. It is also not in dispute that there used
\nto be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. On more than one
\noccasion, the disputes and differences between the deceased and her husband
\nwere settled through the intervention of the Panchayat. In fact, on one
\nsuch occasion a compromise was recorded by the said Panchayat which was
\nmarked as Ext. DL.\n<\/p>\n
We may furthermore notice that, indisputably, at the time the occurrence
\ntook place, the husband was in the latrine. The grievance of the deceased
\nas against her husband appears to be that despite calling, he did not come
\nat the spot. It however, appears from her first dying declaration that she
\nwas taken to the hospital by her husband and his aunt, namely, Pathani –
\nsister of the mother-in-law of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case must be judged in the aforementioned factual backdrop.
\nIt is solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased. Corroboration
\nthereto, if any, can be sought from the fact that it was established that
\nthey had been quarreling on earlier occasions also. In both her dying
\ndeclaration, the genesis of the occurrence is stated to be the same,
\nhowever the mode and the manner in which the same was done as also the role
\nplayed by the appellants and her father-in-law Ranjit Singh, are somewhat
\ninconsistent.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants, as noticed hereinbefore, laid emphasis
\non the fact that keeping in view the said inconsistencies in the dying
\ndeclarations, this Court should not at all rely thereupon.\n<\/p>\n
It is now well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of a
\ndying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable, but in the event
\nthere exists any suspicion as regards correctness or otherwise of the said
\ndying declaration, the Courts in arriving at the judgment of conviction
\nshall look for some corroborating evidence. It is also well known that in a
\ncase where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the
\nactive role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the court
\nshall lean more towards the first dying declaration than the second one.\n<\/p>\n
We, however, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to accept the
\nsubmissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that we should not
\naccept any of the dying declarations at all or any part thereof.\n<\/p>\n
The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect
\nthat PW-3 being the attending physician, there was no reason for her to
\ngrant any certificate, cannot be accepted. She deposed on the basis of the
\nbed-head ticket. Even in the bed-head ticket, it was stated at the time
\nwhen the second dying declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate, and endorsement had been made by Dr. K.K. Chahar that when the
\nMagistrate recorded the statements of the patient she had been in a fit
\nmedical condition. Only because she treated the deceased all along, the
\nsame would not mean that she would examine the patients in the hospital
\nthroughout the day and night.\n<\/p>\n
PW-12 Dr. Rupinder Kaur is also a responsible doctor. In her deposition she
\nhas stated that when the doctor examined the deceased, she was fully
\nconscious and though she was having pain she was fit to make the statement.\n<\/p>\n
It was sought to be argued that the said doctor did not issue any
\ncertificate of recording of dying declaration in the beginning but it was
\nnot necessary. The statement of the deceased was taken only when the
\nlearned Magistrate as also the attending doctor satisfied themselves about
\nher condition to make statement. Mrs. Preeti Sahni, Judicial Magistrate,
\n1st Class, Patiala, who examined herself as PW-1, made a categorical
\nstatement that before her statement was recorded she had put questions to
\nher in order to ascertain whether she was capable of understanding the same
\nand was in aposition to make statement voluntarily. It is of some
\nsignificance to note that the Investigating Officer, Executive Magistrate
\nas also the doctors were taking extreme care in that behalf as is evident
\nfrom the fact that although after recording the first information report,
\nan endeavor was made on 21.8.1997 to get the statement of the deceased
\nrecorded by the Executive magistrate but as she was not found to be in a
\nfit condition to make statement, the same was not recorded. It is therefore
\nnot correct to suggest that the judicial magistrate recorded the statement
\nof the deceased although she was not in a fit condition to make the
\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n
We may, at this juncture, notice the discrepancies, which were considered
\nby both the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court. Whereas the
\ndeceased in her first dying declaration ascribed the role of her father-in-
\nlaw as pouring kerosene on her and the role of ablaze by a match stick to
\nher mother-in-law, but in her statement before the learned Judicial
\nMagistrate, she stated that the mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene on her and
\nthen she set ablazing her with a match stick. It is, therefore, evident
\nthat the role of Roshan Kaur (mother-in-law) in lighting the match stick is
\nconsistent.\n<\/p>\n
We, however, are not in a position to accept the statement of the deceased
\nas regards the roles played by the other accused persons, namely, the
\nbrother-in-laws of the deceased and their respective wives.\n<\/p>\n
The role ascribed to Vir Kaur, wife of Dalip singh (since deceased), and
\nBimla Kaur wife of Santokh Singh, together with their husbands is that they
\nhad allegedly caught hold of her.\n<\/p>\n
Whereas in the second dying declaration, the deceased alleged that while
\nafter quarreling with her husband, she wanted to leave the house and for
\nthat purpose she started gathering clothes, her father-in-law came,
\nfollowed by her sister-in-law Bimla Kaur. Ranjit Singh, her father-in-law
\nand brothers of her husband, namely, Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh, had
\nalso come there. According to her, all the men were helping her mother-in-
\nlaw and at that point of time her mother-in-law set her ablaze with a match
\nstick. The inconsistency in the roles ascribed to her brother-in-law and
\nsisters-in-law is, therefore, evident.. In her first dying declaration, the
\nrole of catching hold of her was ascribed to all of them, other than the
\nmother-in-law; but in the second statement it was ascribed only to the men,
\nnamely her brothers-in-law alone.\n<\/p>\n
We are, therefore of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the rule of
\ncaution should be applied and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to
\nappellant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, namely, Santokh Singh, Vir Kaur w\/o Dalip Singh
\nand Bimla Kaur w\/o Santokh Singh, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
As for the purpose of arriving at the aforementioned conclusion, we have
\nnot taken into consideration the purported oral dying declaration made by
\nthe deceased before PW-7, we do not think it necessary to discuss his
\nevidence. We may, however, observe that the statement of Gurmukh Singh
\n(DW-4), has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge as also
\nby the High Court. There was also no reason as to why any statement shall
\nbe made before him by the deceased. If his statement was correct then it
\nwas expected that he would also come to the hospital. It was furthermore
\nexpected that he would get his statement recorded by the Investigating
\nOfficer. It is to much to contend that he gave his statement before the
\nInvestigating Officer but the same had not been recorded. Not even such
\nsuggestion was made to PW-13, although a lot of suggestions have been
\nthrown at him as regards his conducting one-sided investigation.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the
\ninvestigation is faulty, is not a matter, which, in our considered opinion,
\nis of any importance. The first information report was based on the dying
\ndeclaration. The evidence of the accused was that she caught fire
\naccidentally. The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court has
\nconsidered the matter at great length. Whether the deceased received burn
\ninjuries accidentally or otherwise may be a matter in issue but that she
\nreceived burn injuries is not and issue. It was, therefore, not necessary
\nto take photographs or seize the alleged pieces of burnt clothes. In any
\nview of the matter, the same has not caused any prejudice to the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons aforementioned the appeal of Roshan Kaur, appellant No.-3,
\nis dismissed and the appeal filed by appellant No.2 – Santokh Singh,
\nappellant No.4 – Vir Kaur and appellant No.5 – Bimla Kaur, is allowed.
\nAppellant No. 3 – Roshan Kaur is directed to surrender and she be taken
\ninto custody immediately. Appellant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are on bail. They are
\ndischarged from their bail bonds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 142 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ranjit Singh AND Co. RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ORDER Five appellants, namely, Rajit 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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - 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\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-05T00:27:28+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T00:27:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2777,\"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\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-05T00:27:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - 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\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-05T00:27:28+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T00:27:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006"},"wordCount":2777,"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\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006","name":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-05T00:27:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-and-co-vs-state-of-punjab-on-9-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranjit Singh And Co vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/232538","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=232538"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232538\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}