{"id":255460,"date":"2000-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000"},"modified":"2016-01-22T02:02:57","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T20:32:57","slug":"paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraswami Raju, G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Variava<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPARAMJIT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nDoraswami Raju, G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n      S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
      These  two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by this
\ncommon\tJudgment.   Both  the Appeals are  filed  against  a
\nJudgment  dated 11th September, 1997 of the Punjab & Haryana
\nHigh  Court.   The  High  Court\t  has  convicted  both\t the
\nAppellants  under Section 302 read with Section 34<\/a> I.P.C and
\nsentenced  them\t to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  life.
\nThe  High  Court  has  enhanced the fine  from\tRs.500\/-  to
\nRs.2,000\/-  each  and  in  default of  payment\tthereof\t the
\nAppellants are to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.\n<\/p>\n
      Briefly  stated the facts are as follows:\t The case of
\nthe prosecution is that on the evening of 18th August, 1993,
\none  Subhash  and  one Raj Pal, both  residents\t of  village
\nBabail\thad  a quarrel.\t On 19th August, 1993, as  the\tsaid
\nSubhash\t was returning from the fields, carrying a bundle of
\njowar,\tRaj  Pal with two other persons intercepted him\t and
\ngave  him a beating.  Subhash then complained to Ex-Sarpanch
\nof  the village, who in-turn complained to the father of the
\nRaj  Pal,  one Bhalle Ram that his son should not behave  in
\nthis  manner.  On 20th August, 1993 there was again a heated
\nexchange  between members of the family of these two persons
\nand  there was threat, by one Arjun Singh (from the group of
\nthe  Appellants) that they would come with lathis.  On\t21st
\nof August, 1993, there was again an exchange of word between
\nfamily\tmembers of Raj Pal and the son of one of the accused
\nby  name Mahiya.  During this exchange the family members of
\nRaj  Pal  taunted the said Mahiya that they only give  empty
\nthreats and did not carry them out.\n<\/p>\n
      It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter at 7
\na.m.  on 21st of August, 1993 while Raj Pal along with Fateh
\nSingh,\tRam  Mehar  and Ram Chander was sitting\t on  a\tcot,
\nspread\toutside\t the  house  of\t Ram  Mehar,  Paramjit\t(the
\nAppellant  in  Crl.  Appeal No.882\/99) armed with  a  double
\nbarrel\tgun (belonging to his father), persons by names Nafe
\nSingh,\tMolar, Randhir, Ram Singh (son of one Jailu),  Arjun
\nSingh,\tRajinder  and  one  Raj\t Kumar\tarmed  with  lathis,
\nLachhman  Singh, Bhalle Ram, Ram Singh (son of one  Harbans)
\narmed  with jailies, Jaswant Singh armed with a gandasi\t and
\nMahinder  Singh\t (the Appellant in Crl.\t  Appeal  No.883\/99)
\narmed  with a double barrel gun came there.  Mahinder  fired
\nfrom  his  .12 bore double barrel gun and the shot  hit\t Ram
\nChander.   On hearing the shot certain other people came out
\nfrom  the house.  At that time Paramjit fired two shots from
\nhis  gun.  Thereafter Mahinder Singh fired another shot from
\nhis  gun.  The shots hit one Balkar, Om Pati and Ram Chander
\non  various  parts of their bodies.  It is the case  of\t the
\nprosecution  that Jaswant Singh then gave a gandasi blow  on
\nthe  left  arm\tof Raj Pal, and Molar gave a lathi  blow  on
\nhead,  left arm and nose of Raj Pal.  It is the case of\t the
\nprosecution  that several other injuries were caused to\t the
\nother  members of the complainant party.  In the fight which
\ntook  place Raj Pal and Ram Mehar caught hold of the gun  of
\nthe  Appellant\therein\tand  broke  it\tinto  pieces.\tSome
\ninjuries  were\talso  caused to some of\t the  accused.\t The
\naccused then ran away from the scene carrying their weapons.\n<\/p>\n
      It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Chander was
\nremoved\t to  the  General  Hospital at Panipat\tbut  he\t was
\ndeclared dead on arrival.\n<\/p>\n
      The  FIR in this respect was registered at 10.55\ta.m.
\non the same day.  Initially PW18, Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh
\nrecorded  a report in the daily diary register and  recorded
\nthe  statement\tof PW 10 i.e.  Ram Mehar.  Thereafter PW  16
\ni.e.   Sub Inspector Badan Singh, who was the SHO of  Police
\nStation\t Sadar\tPanipat, took up the investigation from\t ASI
\nBhagat\tSingh.\t He then made his way to village Babail\t and
\nexamined  the  place  of  the occurrence  and  lifted  blood
\nstained\t earth\tfrom two places and an empty shell of a\t .12
\nbore  cartridge\t from the place of occurrence.\tHe  recorded
\nthe  statements\t of various witnesses and then arrested\t Ram
\nSingh  (son of Jailu), Jaswant Singh, Randhir, Rajinder\t and
\nSanjay.\t  On 30th August, 1993, Mahinder (Appellant in\tCrl.
\nAppeal\tNo.  883\/99) was arrested.  Pursuant to a disclosure
\nstatement  made\t by him, a double barrel gun along with\t two
\nfired cartridge cases still in the gun barrel was recovered.
\nOn  31st August, 1993, Mahiya, Nafe Singh and Ram Singh\t son
\nof   Harbans  were  arrested.\tAs  per\t  their\t  disclosure
\nstatements the weapons used by them were recovered.  On 18th
\nSeptember,  1993,  Arjun  Singh, Bhalle Ram, Raj  Kumar\t and
\nLachhman  were arrested.  A jaili each was recovered as\t per
\nthe  disclosure statements made by Bhalle Ram and  Lachhman.
\nA  lathi each was recovered as per the disclosure statements
\nmade  by  Arjun\t Singh\tand   Raj  Kumar.   Paramjit   Singh
\n(Appellant in Crl.  Appeal No.\t882\/99) was arrested on 28th
\nSeptember, 1993.  A .12 bore double barrel gun was recovered
\non  the basis of a disclosure statement made by him.   Molar
\nwas  arrested on 10th October, 1993.  A lathi was  recovered
\nas per the disclosure statement made by him.\n<\/p>\n
      The  guns and the cartridges were sent to the Forensic
\nScience\t Laboratory  at Madhuban.  According to\t the  report
\ngiven  by the Laboratory and supported by the evidence of PW
\n5,  i.e.   Dr.\t L.A.\tKumar, the Deputy  Director  of\t the
\nLaboratory,  the gun recovered from Paramjit singh was in  a
\nbroken condiiton but could be made serviceable after repairs
\nand  the gun recovered from Mahinder Singh was\tserviceable.
\nThe Report and evidence proved that the fired cartridge case
\nhad  been  fired  from these two guns and that\tthe  pellets
\nrecovered  from the dead-body of Ram Chander and the  person
\nof Balkar Singh were Shot Gun Pellets, which could have been
\nfired from these guns.\n<\/p>\n
      All  the above named persons, who were arrested,\twere
\ncommitted  to  the  Session’s Court.  As  they\tpleaded\t not
\nguilty, they were brought to trial.\n<\/p>\n
      The  prosecution\texamined  18  witnesses.   In  their
\nstatement  under  Section  313<\/a>\tof   the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure Code, Mahinder Singh denied that he was present at
\nthe spot and claimed that because of his good relations with
\nthe  family of Molar he had been falsely implicated.  On the
\nother hand Paramjit Singh admitted the incidents but claimed
\nthat it was the group of Ram Mehar who were causing injuries
\nto  Molar  and others and that he merely intervened to\tsave
\nthose  persons.\t He claimed that he fired the shots to\tsave
\nhimself\t and  his companions.  He admitted that his gun\t was
\nbroken to pieces.\n<\/p>\n
      The  defence  also examined three witnesses, who\twere
\ndoctors\t to show that some of the Accused had also  received
\ninjuries.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Sessions Judge considered the evidence in  detail
\nand convicted all the Accused for offences under Section 148<\/a>
\nof  the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 302<\/a>, 307<\/a>, 326<\/a>,
\n325<\/a>,  324<\/a>,  323<\/a>\t read with Section 149<\/a> of the  Indian  Penal
\nCode.\tMahinder  and  Paramjit\t  were\talso  convicted\t for
\noffences  punishable under Section 27<\/a> of the Arms Act, 1959.
\nAll   the  Accused  were   sentenced  to  undergo   rigorous
\nimprisonment  for  life and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/-  each.
\nIn default of payment of fine, they were to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
      All  the\tAccused filed Criminal Appeal No.  66-DB  of
\n1996 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.  By the impugned
\nJudgment  dated 11th September, 1997, the High Court came to
\nthe conclusion that the incident was in the nature of a free
\nfight and that each of the accused was only liable for their
\nindividual  act.  On this basis the High Court held that the
\nprosecution had not proved the case, beyond reasonable doubt
\nin  respect of Bhalla Ram and acquitted him of all  charges.
\nThe  High  Court  also\theld that the  prosecution  had\t not
\nproved,\t  in  respect  of  all\t accused,  other  than\t the
\nAppellants,  the  charge  under Section\t 302<\/a>\/307<\/a>  read\twith
\nSection 149<\/a> I.P.C.  and allowed their appeal to that extent.
\nIn  respect  of Sanjay, Randhir, Ram Singh (son\t of  Jailu),
\nNafe  Singh,  Rajinder\tSingh, Mahiya, Arjun,  Lachhman\t and
\nMolar,\tthe High Court upheld their conviction under Section
\n323<\/a>  I.P.C.   but sentenced them to period  of\timprisonment
\nalready undergone.  The fine was increased to Rs.1000\/- each
\nand  in\t default  of payment thereof each  was\tdirected  to
\nundergo\t further  RI  for  three  months.   The\t High  Court
\nconvicted  Jaswant  Singh for an offence under\tSection\t 326<\/a>
\nI.P.C.\t and  sentenced\t him to the period  of\timprisonment
\nalready\t undergone.  The fine was enhanced to Rs.1000\/-.  In
\ndefault\t thereof he was directed to undergo further RI for 3
\nmonths.\t The High Court convicted Ram Singh (son of Harbans)
\nfor  an offence under Section 325<\/a> I.P.C.  and sentenced\t him
\nto  the period of imprisonment already undergone.  The\tfine
\nwas  enhanced to Rs.1000\/- and in default thereof he was  to
\nundergo further RI for 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
      In  respect  of Mahinder and Paramjit, the High  Court
\nheld that it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these two
\npersons had fired the guns and that this had resulted in the
\ndeath  of  Ram\tChander.   These two  Appellants  were\tthus
\nconvicted  under  Section  302<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a>  of\t the
\nIndian\t penal\tCode  and   sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous
\nimprisonment  for  life.   The fine was\t enhanced  from\t Rs.
\n500\/-  to  Rs.\t2000\/-.\t In default of payment they were  to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.\n<\/p>\n
      Paramjit\tand  Mahinder  have   filed  these  Criminal
\nAppeals\t against  their conviction by the High\tCourt.\t The
\nState  of Haryana had filed S.L.P.  (Crl.) No.\t277 of\t1999
\nagainst the portion of the impugned Judgment whereby all the
\nother  Accused\twere  acquitted of  offences  under  Section
\n302<\/a>\/307<\/a>\t read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C..\tHowever, that S.L.P.
\nstood dismissed on 19th March, 1999 as Counsel for the State
\nof Haryana was not present.  No Application has been made to
\nhave  that S.L.P.  restored.  None of the other parties have
\nappealed against the judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
      On behalf of both the Appellants it was submitted that
\nthese  Appellants  had\tacted  in   self  defence.   It\t was
\nsubmitted  that\t both the Courts below had ignored the\tfact
\nthat many of the Accused had also received serious injuries.
\nIt  was\t submitted that this clearly showed that it was\t the
\nother  party  which  were  the\t aggressors  and  that\t the
\nAppellants  were  merely  defending   themselves.   It\t was
\nsubmitted  that\t prosecution  had failed  to  examine  these
\ninjured\t persons  or to examine any  independent  witnesses.
\nReliance  was placed in the case of Baddi Venkata  Narasayya
\nand Ors.  vs.  State of A.P<\/a>., (1998) 2 S.C.C.  329.  In this
\ncase  it  was  held  that  in\tcases  of  free\t fights\t the
\nprosecution  case against each accused must be supported  by
\nat least two witnesses.\t Based on this it was submitted that
\nthe  prosecution  had  not been able to pin-point  any\tcase
\nagainst\t these\ttwo Appellants.\t It was submitted  that\t the
\ncase  of the prosecution against these two Appellants is not
\nsupported by evidence of two independent witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
      Reliance was also placed upon the case of Gajanand and
\nOrs.   vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a>, A.I.R.  1954 S.C.\t695,
\nand  it\t was submitted that if the Court held that this\t was
\nnot  a\tcase of free fight, then this was a case  where\t the
\nAppellants   were   merely  exercising\t  their\t  right\t  of
\nself-defence.\n<\/p>\n
      On  behalf  of Mahinder it was further submitted\tthat
\nfrom  the site of incident only one cartridge was found.  It
\nwas  submitted\tthat even according to the prosecution\tmore
\nthan  three shots had been fired.  It was submitted that  it
\nhad not been shown that Mahinder had any common intention to
\nmurder or take part in an unlawful assembly.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  other hand, Counsel for the State of  Haryana
\nhas  supported the reasonings and the findings given by\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
      We have considered the submissions of the parties.  We
\nhave  also  read the evidence.\tIn our view both the  Courts
\nbelow  are right in holding that, on the earlier days, there
\nhad  been  altercations\t between  Subhash and  Raj  Pal\t and
\nbetween\t their family members.\tIn our view both the  Courts
\nbelow have correctly concluded that the chain of events were
\nproved.\t  In our view it is also proved that on the  morning
\nof  21st  August, 1993, the Appellants, along with  all\t the
\nother named persons, had gone outside the house of Ram Maher
\nwhere  Raj Pal and the deceased Ram Chander was sitting on a
\ncot.   In our view the venue of the incident is proved.\t  In
\nour  view it is proved that both Paramjit and Mahinder\twere
\narmed  with  double  barrel  guns.  This  shows\t that  these
\npersons\t were  the aggressors.\tThe evidence of a number  of
\nwitnesses  shows  that\tthese two persons  had\tfired  their
\ndouble barrel guns and that the pellets from both these guns
\nhad  hit Ram Chander.  The evidence proves that Ram  Chander
\nhad died as a result of these gun shot wounds.\tIn case of a
\ndouble barrel gun, it is impossible to make out which pellet
\nhas  been  fired  from\twhich  gun.   The  evidence  of\t the
\nballistic  expert  showed  that the injury suffered  by\t Ram
\nChander\t and  the pellets removed from his body\t could\thave
\nbeen fired from these double barrel guns.  Coupled with this
\nis  the fact that there has been recovery of the guns as per
\nthe  disclosure\t statement  made by Paramjit  and  Mahinder.
\nAlso  it is not even the case of the Appellants that,  apart
\nfrom  them, any other person\/persons had guns.\tAs the group
\nof the Appellants were the aggressors, both the Courts below
\nhave  correctly\t held that the injuries received by some  of
\nthe Accused were by reason of the other group acting in self
\ndefence.   We also find that the presence of Mahinder during
\nthe  incident  is  proved beyond a reasonable  doubt.\tAlso
\nthere  is  no substance in the submission  that\t independent
\nwitnesses  were not examined.  The prosecution only needs to
\nlead  evidence\tsufficient to prove its case.  In this\tcase
\nthe   prosecution  has\tled   trustworthy  evidence  of\t eye
\nwitnesses.  Both the courts below have accepted the evidence
\nof  these witnesses and we see no reason to take a different
\nview.\tThe prosecution has thus proved all necessary facts.
\nIn  view  of  these  facts   having  been  proved  beyond  a
\nreasonable  doubt  we find no infirmity in the reasoning  of
\nthe High Court in the impugned Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      We  thus see no reason to interfere.  Accordingly\t the
\nAppeals stand dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 Author: S N Variava Bench: Doraswami Raju, G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Variava PETITIONER: PARAMJIT Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2000 BENCH: Doraswami Raju, G.B.Pattanaik, S.N.Variava JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J S. N. VARIAVA, J. These two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by this common […]<\/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-255460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParamjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - 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\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2439,\"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-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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 vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - 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\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000"},"wordCount":2439,"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-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000","name":"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T20:32:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paramjit vs State Of Haryana on 11 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/255460","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=255460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}