{"id":239758,"date":"2005-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005"},"modified":"2015-08-19T03:54:26","modified_gmt":"2015-08-18T22:24:26","slug":"ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  377 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRavi Kumar\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/03\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nArijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division
\nBench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirming the conviction of the
\nappellant (hereinafter referred to as the `accused’) under Section 302 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC’) and sentence of
\nimprisonment for life and fine imposed with default stipulation.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
On May 29, 1996 a quarrel had taken place between Hans Raj (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the `deceased’) and accused Ravi Kumar, who was then servant
\nof one Gandharav Singh over a very trivial matter. Deceased reported the
\nincident to his brother Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Ram Lubhaya. On May 30, 1996
\nat about 7 p.m. when the three brothers were present in the Hada Rori of
\nvillage Jadla, Gandharav Singh called deceased to get the dispute settled
\nwith his servant accused-Ravi Kumar. Mohan Lal and deceased followed
\nGandharav Singh to his tubewell. Accused-Ravi Kumar and Bahadur Singh
\n(PW-4) were already present there. Gandharav Singh placed a Dhangu behind
\nhim. When the talks were going on, a quarrel between accused-Ravi Kumar and
\ndeceased again ensued. Accused-Ravi Kumar picked up the Dhangu placed
\nbehind Gandharav Singh and gave two blows on the head of deceased. Deceased
\nfell down. Mohan Lal (PW-3) raised an alarm. In the meantime Ram Lubhaya
\nalso reached there. Accused-Ravi Kumar then made good his escape. Deceased
\nwas taken to the Primary Health Centre, Jadla by Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Ram
\nLubhaya. After giving first aid, deceased was referred to Civil Hospital,
\nNawanshahr.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Harbans Lal Mann (PW-1) medico-legally examined the deceased at 9.05
\na.m. on May 30, 1996. The doctor found two injuries – (i) incised wound on
\nthe right side of the scalp and (ii) swelling on the occipital frontal
\nregion. Both the injuries were kept under observation. Deceased was unfit
\nto make a statement and was referred to the P.G.I., Chandigarh. Deceased
\nwas admitted to P.G.I., Chandigarh, at about 10.20 a.m. on May 30, 1996.
\nA.S.I. Harbhajan Singh, Police Post P.G.I., Chandigarh (PW-2) moved an
\napplication (Ex. PC) in order to know if deceased was fit to make a
\nstatement. The doctor at the P.G.I. made the endorsement (Ex. PC\/1) and
\ndeclared the deceased unfit to make a statement. Deceased ultimately died
\nat 1.15 p.m. on May 30, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
After the death of deceased, his brother Mohan Lal (PW-3) proceeded to
\nPolice Station, Nawanshahr, to lodge the FIR. S.I. Surjit Kumar (PW-7) met
\nhim at the chowk on Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr. The S.I. recorded his
\nstatement (Ex.PH) and after making endorsement (Ex.PH\/1), it was dispatched
\nto Police Station, Nawanshahr, where formal first information report (Ex.
\nPH\/2) was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
The accused was arrested on 6th June, 1996 at the bus stand of the village
\nVirowal. He made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which the Dhangu which
\nwas stated to be weapon of assault was recovered. On completion of
\ninvestigation charge sheet was placed. Charge for offence punishable under
\nSection 302 IPC was framed. “Accused pleaded innocence. Eight witnesses
\nwere examined to further the prosecution version. During trial accused took
\nthe plea that the prosecution version needs to be rejected as there was
\ndelay in lodging the FIR and submission of the special report to the Illaqa
\nMagistrate, unlikely presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence
\nand their interestedness, non-examination of Gandharv Singh though he was
\nclaimed to be an eye witness and inconsistency between the medical and oral
\nevidence. The trial court considered the evidence of the witnesses and
\nfound substance in their testimony. It was noted that there was no unusual
\nor unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Similar was the case with the
\ndispatch of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. It was noted that
\nnon examination of Gandharav Singh is really of no consequence as he being
\nthe master of the accused-appellant would not have come out with the truth.
\nThe evidence disclosed that the initial fight was between the accused and
\nthe deceased and the accused assaulted the deceased when quarrel ensued
\nduring the talks for sorting out the difference. There was also no
\ninconsistency between the medical and oral evidence. There was no reason
\nfor the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal before the High Court was dismissed by rejecting the pleas which
\nwere reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
\nthe doctor has found an incised wound which could not have been possible
\nwith the weapon i.e. Dhangu which was claimed to have been used. In any
\nevent, the assaults took place in the course of quarrel and, therefore,
\nSection 302 is ruled out, and Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC applies. There
\nwas inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to
\nthe Illaqa Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the
\njudgment of the High Court and submitted that after detailed analysis the
\nCourts have found the accused guilty. There is no infirmity in the
\nconclusions; hence there is no reason to warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
The plea which was urged with some amount of vehemence was that there was
\nunreasonable delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to the
\nIllaqa Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
As the evidence on record shows the occurrence took place around 7 A.M. on
\n30th May, 1996. In the said occurrence the deceased was seriously injured.
\nTherefore, the first priority of his brothers i.e. Mohan Lal (PW-3) and Ram
\nLubhaya was to provide immediate medical aid so that his life could be
\nsaved. He was immediately taken to the primary health centre, Jadla and
\nthereafter was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nawanshahr. There the doctor
\nafter examining him found the condition to be serious and referred the
\npatient to the PGI at Chandigarh where he ultimately died at 1.15 P.M.
\nAfter his death, PW-3 lodged first information report at the police
\nstation, Nawanshahr shortly thereafter, after making arrangements for his
\nfuneral. The distance between the hospital and the Police Station is few
\nkilometers. The special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate
\nshortly after the mid night. The sequence of events as is evident from the
\nrecord shows that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR as the
\nfirst effort of his brothers was to take the deceased to different
\nhospitals for medical aid. As has been rightly observed by the courts below
\nthe first priority of the family members was to save the life of the
\ndeceased. Similarly, there is no unexplained delay in sending the special
\nreport because of special magistrate, as the distance between the Police
\nStation and the place where the Illaqa Magistrate was stationed was not
\nsmall.\n<\/p>\n
In Ram Jag and Ors. v. The State of U.P., AIR<\/a> (1974) SC 606, it was
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on
\n\tthe deeds of prosecution case must depend upon a variety of
\n\tfactors. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no
\n\tmotive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt
\n\tfiling of the reports is not an unmistakable guarantee of the
\n\ttruthfulness of the version of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every
\n\thour’s delay in filing information and a common sense view has to
\n\tbe taken in ascertaining whether the First Information Report was
\n\tlodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for
\n\tmanipulating evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
As observed by this Court in Pala Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR
\n(1972) SC 2679, some delay in receipt of the special report by the Illaqa
\nMagistrate does not make the investigation tainted. Similar was the view
\nexpressed in Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR<\/a> (1976) SC 2304.
\nIt was held that delay in dispatch of the First Information Report is not a
\nsubstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court and the High Court, therefore, rightly held that there was
\nno delay in either lodging the FIR or sending the special report to the
\nIllaqa Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
The First Information Report is a report giving information of the
\ncommission of a cognizable crime which may be made by the complainant or by
\nany other person knowing about the commission of such an offence. It is
\nintended to set the criminal law in motion. Any information relating to the
\ncommission of a cognizable offence is required to be reduced to writing by
\nthe officer-in-charge of the Police Station which has to be signed by the
\nperson giving it and the substance thereof is required to be entered in a
\nbook to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
\nprescribe in that behalf. The registration of the FIR empowers the officer-
\nin-charge of the Police Station to commence investigation with respect to
\nthe crime reported to him. A copy of the FIR is required to be sent
\nforthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence.
\nAfter recording the FIR, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station is
\nobliged to proceed in person or depute one of his subordinate officers not
\nbelow such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order,
\nprescribe in that behalf to proceed to the spot to investigate the facts
\nand circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the
\ndiscovery and arrest of the offender. It has been held time and again that
\nthe FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to
\ncorroborate the statement of the maker under Section 161 of the Indian
\nEvidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act’) or to contradict him under
\nSection 145 of that Act. It can neither be used as evidence against the
\nmaker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or
\ncontradict other witnesses. It is not the requirement of law that the
\nminutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the
\noccurrence. The fact of the state of mental agony of the person making the
\nFIR who generally is the victim himself, if not dead, or the relations or
\nassociates of the deceased victim apparently under the shock of the
\noccurrence reported has always to be kept in mind. The object of insisting
\nupon lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the
\ncircumstance in which the crime was committed.\n<\/p>\n
Sending the copy of the special report to the Magistrate as required under
\nSection 157 of the Cr.P.C. is the only external check on the working of the
\npolice agency, imposed by law which is required to be strictly followed.
\nThe delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole
\nof the case of the prosecution as doubtful but shall put the court on guard
\nto find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same
\nversion as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations
\ninvolving some other persons who were actually not involved in the
\ncommission of the crime. Immediate sending of the report mentioned in
\nSection 157 Cr.P.C. is the mandate of law. Delay wherever found is required
\nto be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained,
\nno adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would
\nrequire the court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring
\nitself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime
\nor not.\n<\/p>\n
It was highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant that the injury
\nwhich proved fatal was an incised wound and considering the prosecution
\nversion that he was holding a Dhangu, such injury was not possible.\n<\/p>\n
This plea is untenable. The doctor who examined the deceased had clearly
\nstated that the blow given by the Dhangu on hard portion of the body could
\ncause incised wound. Reference may be made to Modi’s Text Book of Medical
\nJurisprudence and Toxicology (Sixteenth Edition). At page 224 it has been
\nmentioned that occasionally on wounds produced by a blunt weapon or by a
\nfall the skin splits and may look like incised wounds when inflicted on
\ntense structures covering the bones, such as the scalp, eye brow, illiac
\ncrest, shin, etc. or by a fall on the knee or elbow when the limb is
\nflexed. The edges of such wounds would be found irregular with a certain
\namount of bruising. The doctor, as noted above, has categorically stated
\nthat the injury was possible, in view of what has been stated by Modi in
\nhis Text, by use of the Dhangu on the hard portion of the body. Therefore,
\nthere is no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular
\nevidence. In any event where the ocular evidence is cogent, credible, the
\nmedical evidence to the contrary cannot corrode the evidentiary value of
\nthe former. (See State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Ors., AIR<\/a> (1988) SC
\n2154).\n<\/p>\n
The residuary plea relates to the applicability of Exception 4 of Section
\n300 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
For bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was
\ncommitted without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
\nupon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and
\nnot having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.\n<\/p>\n
The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight.
\nThe said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the
\nfirst exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate.
\nThe exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is
\nabsence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is
\ntotal deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only
\nthat heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reason and urges them to
\ndeeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception
\n4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of
\nthat provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which
\nnotwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given
\nin the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have
\noriginated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect
\nof guilt upon equal footing. A `sudden fight’ implies mutual provocation
\nand blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not
\ntraceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole
\nblame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more
\nappropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous
\ndeliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for
\nwhich both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of
\nthem starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct
\nit would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual
\nprovocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of
\nblame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be
\ninvoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden
\nfight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in
\na cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person
\nkilled. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in
\nit must be found. It is to be noted that the `fight’ occurring in Exception
\n4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a
\nfight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions
\nto cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a
\nfury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a
\ncombat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is
\nno possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be
\na sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden
\nor not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the
\napplication of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a
\nsudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown
\nthat the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or
\nunusual manner. The expression `undue advantage’ as used in the provision
\nmeans `unfair advantage’.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the factual background it will be appropriate to convict the
\nappellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC as has
\nbeen done by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. Custodial
\nsentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 377 of 2005 PETITIONER: Ravi Kumar RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/03\/2005 BENCH: Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. Appellant calls […]<\/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-239758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRavi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - 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\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-18T22:24:26+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\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T22:24:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2861,\"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\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\",\"name\":\"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-18T22:24:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - 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\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-18T22:24:26+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\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T22:24:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005"},"wordCount":2861,"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\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005","name":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-18T22:24:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravi-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravi Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/239758","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=239758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239758\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}