{"id":25636,"date":"2011-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-04T17:28:41","modified_gmt":"2015-12-04T11:58:41","slug":"gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: …….J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                              1\n\n\n                                           NON- REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1237  OF 2008\n\n\n\n\nGURJINDER SINGH                                                 .....APPELLANT.\n\n\n\n\n                                     VERSUS\n\n\nSTATE OF  PUNJAB                                                .....RESPONDENT\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ANIL R. DAVE, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)            Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction rendered by the <\/p>\n
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 253-\n<\/p>\n
DB   of   2006   dated   1st  February,   2008,   this   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
convict.   By virtue of impugned order, the appellant has been convicted for <\/p>\n
the   offence   under   Section   302   of   IPC   and   has   been   awarded   sentence   of <\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-, in default, to undergo <\/p>\n
further rigorous imprisonment for six months.  The order of conviction dated <\/p>\n
3rd March, 2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case <\/p>\n
No.33 of 2001 has been confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.      The case of the prosecution in a nut-shell before the trial court was as <\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
       Sandeep   Singh   (who   has   been   referred   to   hereinafter   as   `the <\/p>\n
deceased’)   was  a   resident   of   village   Chhibian   Wali.     He  had   lent   a   sum  of <\/p>\n
Rs.5   lacs   to   Gurjinder   Singh-the   appellant   and   the   said   amount   was   not <\/p>\n
being returned by Gurninder Singh (hereinafter referred to as `the accused’).\n<\/p>\n
On   the  night   of   9th  June,   2001,   the  deceased   and  the  accused,   along   with <\/p>\n
Jasbir   Singh   (PW-4)   were   going   to   village   Chhibian   Wali   in   Maruti   Car   No. <\/p>\n
PB-4-E   6699   from   Muktsar.     The   deceased   was   driving   the   car   and   the <\/p>\n
accused was sitting next to him, whereas PW-4 was sitting on the rear seat.\n<\/p>\n
Around 10.30 p.m., when they were about one kilometer away from Canal <\/p>\n
Bridge,   Ladhuwala,   the   accused   asked   the   deceased   to   stop   the  car   as   he <\/p>\n
wanted   to  ease   himself.     When   the  car   was  stopped,   the  accused   stepped <\/p>\n
out of the car and went to  the back side of the car and thereafter came near <\/p>\n
the driver’s seat with his pistol and fired one shot on the right temple of the <\/p>\n
deceased and another shot on the neck of the deceased.   Upon seeing the <\/p>\n
said   firing,   PW-4   raised   an   alarm   and   thereupon   the   accused   warned   him <\/p>\n
that he  would kill him also if he would  not keep  quiet  and,  thereafter,  the <\/p>\n
accused fired on his own left arm and another shot below his own knee of <\/p>\n
the right leg.   PW-4 was afraid of the incident and thereafter he ran away <\/p>\n
from the place.  He, thereafter, telephoned his sister and his sister’s husband <\/p>\n
but he was advised to keep mum to save himself.  Thereafter, his sister and <\/p>\n
her husband, who were abroad, came to India and cremated the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
Thereafter, PW-4 went to police station along with his sister and her husband <\/p>\n
and narrated the incident to S.H.O. Harbans  Singh  (PW-13).     An FIR  was <\/p>\n
lodged by him on  1st  July, 2001 at 5 a.m.  whereas the  incident  had taken <\/p>\n
place on 9th June, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
3.    It may incidentally be noted that before the aforesaid FIR was lodged, <\/p>\n
the accused had lodged an FIR being FIR No.118 on 10th  June, 2001 at PS <\/p>\n
Sadar, Jalalabad.\n<\/p>\n
4.    On   10th  June,   2001,   the   accused   had   filed   the   FIR   before   Harbans <\/p>\n
Singh (PW-13) to the effect that when the accused and the deceased were <\/p>\n
returning to village Chhibian Wali from Muktsar in Maruti car along with PW-\n<\/p>\n
4, who was sitting on the back seat of the car, around 10.30 p.m. when they <\/p>\n
reached near Canal Bridge, Ladhuwala, he saw a white gypsy belonging to <\/p>\n
Harcharan   Singh   parked   on   the   road.     Harcharan   Singh   and   two   other <\/p>\n
unknown persons, whom he did not know but he could identify if produced <\/p>\n
before   him,   stopped   the   car   of   the   deceased   and,   thereafter,   Harcharan <\/p>\n
Singh came near the driver’s window and fired at the deceased.  The bullets <\/p>\n
injured him on his neck and temple.  Those two unknown persons also fired <\/p>\n
at him and the bullets hit him on the upper side of the arm between shoulder <\/p>\n
and his  elbow, then the accused and  PW-4 tried to run away.   Thereafter, <\/p>\n
Harcharan Singh went away in his gypsy.   The accused and PW-4 had seen <\/p>\n
Sandeep Singh dead in the car.   Leaving PW-4 near the   dead body of the <\/p>\n
                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased,   he   went   to   police   station   and   lodged   the   FIR.     The   aforesaid <\/p>\n
version of the accused was recorded as FIR No.118 on 10th June, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
5.     After the aforesaid FIR was filed, Harbans Singh (PW-13), the S.H.O.\n<\/p>\n
went   to   the   place   of   offence   and   prepared   inquest   report   Ex.P.2   and   took <\/p>\n
possession of three empty cartridges and blood stained handkerchiefs, blood <\/p>\n
stained   glasses   and   one   empty   cartridge   below   the   driver’s   seat   and   one <\/p>\n
bullet of .32 bore weapon.  He also recorded statement of PW-4 on 1st July, <\/p>\n
2001.\n<\/p>\n
6.     As   per   the  report   of  Forensic   Science   Laboratory   (FSL)  Ex.   P.51,  the <\/p>\n
cartridges which had been received from the spot of the offence were fired <\/p>\n
from 7.65 mm pistol and the blood which was found from the pieces of glass <\/p>\n
was human blood of Group `B’.\n<\/p>\n
7.     On 2nd July, 2001, investigation of the offence had been taken over by <\/p>\n
sub-Inspector  Kuldeep  Singh (PW-12)  and he had  arrested the  accused on <\/p>\n
the same day.   On 3rd  July, 2001, the accused was interrogated and at his <\/p>\n
instance (statement Ex.P-46),   the pistol  from which the bullets were fired <\/p>\n
was recovered from a place half a kilometer away from the culvert of a canal <\/p>\n
near village Ladhuwala.\n<\/p>\n
8.     Post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Rajesh <\/p>\n
                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar Sharma (PW-1) on 10th June, 2001, and it was found that there was a <\/p>\n
lacerated   punctured   wound   on   the   right   temporal   region   and   there   was   a <\/p>\n
lacerated   punctured   wound   on   the   right   side   of   the   middle   of   the   neck.\n<\/p>\n
There   was   a   dark   black   area   around   both   the   wounds.     A   lacerated <\/p>\n
unpunctured wound on the left side of his neck and behind the left ear lobe <\/p>\n
was also found.   The fourth injury on the deceased was on the back of the <\/p>\n
neck at the level of C6 Vertebra and 3 cm. away from the middle of the left <\/p>\n
side   of   the   neck.     The   cause   of   death   was   shock   and   hemorrhage   due   to <\/p>\n
injuries to brain and neck.  The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the <\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n
9.     At the time of trial, the accused denied the allegations levelled against <\/p>\n
him.     It   was   his   case   that   PW-4   had   planned   the   murder   and   he   had <\/p>\n
conspired with Harcharan Singh, with whom the accused had animosity.\n<\/p>\n
10.     After   examining   the   witnesses   and   upon   perusal   of   the  evidence,   the <\/p>\n
trial court passed an order of conviction dated 3rd March, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
11.    Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the aforestated appeal was <\/p>\n
filed  before the High  Court  by the  accused which  has  been  dismissed  and, <\/p>\n
therefore, the present appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
12     The   High   Court   confirmed   the   conviction   believing   the   story   of   the <\/p>\n
prosecution.   The High Court agreed with the reasons assigned by the trial <\/p>\n
court   for   convicting   the   accused   and   the   High   Court   also   came   to   the <\/p>\n
                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to show that the accused had <\/p>\n
committed the offence.  Recovery of the pistol, self inflicted injury, presence <\/p>\n
of the accused at the place of the offence and other evidence convinced the <\/p>\n
High Court that the order of conviction passed by the trial court was just and <\/p>\n
proper and it dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
13.    Mr.   Jaspal   Singh,   learned   senior   counsel,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
accused-appellant,   submitted   that   the   order   of   conviction   recorded   by   the <\/p>\n
trial   court   and   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   is   not   sustainable.     His   main <\/p>\n
submission was to the effect that there was delay in filing the FIR on the part <\/p>\n
of   the  prosecution   witness   (PW-4).    Had   the  story   narrated  by   PW-4  been <\/p>\n
correct,  he would have immediately rushed  to the police  station  to file the <\/p>\n
FIR but he waited for around 20 days for filing the FIR and the said delay has <\/p>\n
not been sufficiently explained by PW-4.\n<\/p>\n
14.    The learned counsel also submitted that the pistol had been recovered <\/p>\n
from   a   public   place.     It   was   found   from   a   place   which   was   about   half   a <\/p>\n
kilometer   away   from   a   bridge   of   Ladhuwala   Uttar   and   on   a   katcha   path.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover,   the   pistol   belonged   to   Jagtar   Singh   (PW-9)   and   not   to   the <\/p>\n
accused.  There was sufficient evidence to show that the owner of the pistol <\/p>\n
was PW-9 as established from the record and, therefore, the recovery of the <\/p>\n
pistol   could   not   have   been   a   ground   for   conviction   of   the   accused.     He <\/p>\n
further added that it was not established that the accused had purchased the <\/p>\n
pistol   because   no  receipt  for  Rs.  90,000\/-  had been   produced   in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
Moreover,   according   to   him,   there   was   no   identification   of   the   pistol.     He <\/p>\n
further submitted that the parents of the deceased had not been examined <\/p>\n
by   the   prosecution,   though,   as   per   version   of   PW-4,   he   had   talked   to   the <\/p>\n
parents of the deceased after the offence had been committed.  According to <\/p>\n
him, the FIR filed by PW-4 contained a story which was not correct. There <\/p>\n
was no reason for PW-4  to be afraid of anyone and yet he did not lodge the <\/p>\n
FIR for a long period of about 21 days.  By not examining the parents of the <\/p>\n
deceased,   according   to   the   learned   counsel,   there   was   suppression   of <\/p>\n
material witnesses by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
15.    He further submitted that the statement made by the accused leading <\/p>\n
to   the   recovery   of   the   pistol   had   not   been   produced   in   the   evidence.\n<\/p>\n
According   to   him,   only   memo,   which   is   in   the   nature   of   the   secondary <\/p>\n
evidence,   was   produced   and,   therefore,   recovery   of   pistol   could   not   have <\/p>\n
been believed by the trial court.   According to him, even the memo, which <\/p>\n
revealed   that   in   presence   of   `witnesses’   the   pistol   was   recovered,   was   not <\/p>\n
correct   because,   in   fact   there   was   only   one   witness   when   the   pistol   was <\/p>\n
recovered. According to him, at the time of making a recovery memo, there <\/p>\n
were policemen who were not examined and there was no justifiable reason <\/p>\n
for not examining those policemen.     He further submitted that recovery of <\/p>\n
certain cartridges-bullets from the car have not been explained though only <\/p>\n
two   bullets   had   been   fired   at   the   deceased,   more   number   of   bullets-\n<\/p>\n
cartridges had been found and there was no explanation with regard to those <\/p>\n
bullets-cartridges.          He   further   submitted   that   there   were   certain <\/p>\n
                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
discrepancies with regard to number of parcels containing bullets-cartridges <\/p>\n
sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).\n<\/p>\n
16.    For   the   aforestated   reasons,   according   to   the   learned   counsel,   there <\/p>\n
were defects in the investigation and there was no conclusive evidence that <\/p>\n
the accused had committed the offence. He also cited several judgments so <\/p>\n
as to  substantiate his submissions.  He, therefore, submitted that the order <\/p>\n
of conviction be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
17.    On   the   other   hand,     the   learned   public   prosecutor   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
State submitted that there was proper investigation and upon appreciation of <\/p>\n
evidence adduced before the trial court, the trial court rightly convicted the <\/p>\n
accused.     According   to   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State,   the <\/p>\n
discrepancy, if any, with regard to identification of the pistol or the memo of <\/p>\n
recovery   were   so   insignificant   that   it   would   not   lead   to   any   serious <\/p>\n
consequences.   According to him, the prosecution had established the case <\/p>\n
against   the   accused   and   there   was   no   reason   to   set   aside   the   order   of <\/p>\n
conviction.       He   had   replied   to   all   the   submissions   made   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the accused.\n<\/p>\n
18.    We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   at   length   and   have   also   gone <\/p>\n
through   the   relevant   evidence.     We   have   also   carefully   gone   through   the <\/p>\n
judgments cited by the   learned counsel appearing for the accused and we <\/p>\n
do find that the said judgments support the legal submissions made by him.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
Upon   perusal   of   the   impugned   judgment   and   judgment   of   the   trial   court <\/p>\n
along with evidence, we are of the view that the order of conviction passed <\/p>\n
by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is just and proper for the <\/p>\n
reasons   set   out   hereafter.     In   our   opinion,   the   trial   court   has   rightly <\/p>\n
appreciated the evidence and the High Court has also confirmed the order of <\/p>\n
conviction   for   justifiable   reasons,   duly   incorporated   in   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order  confirming the conviction.\n<\/p>\n
19.    So far as the delay in filing the FIR is concerned, there appears to be <\/p>\n
substance in what has been stated by PW-4.  Every human being would not <\/p>\n
react   in   the   same   manner   when   he   sees   commission   of   an   offence.       A <\/p>\n
person   might   be   bold   enough   to   catch   the   offender   or   he   might   run   away <\/p>\n
and   someone   might   never   inform   the   police.     Looking   to   the   behaviour   of <\/p>\n
PW-4, we think that  though  there  was delay in filing  the FIR    of about 20 <\/p>\n
days, there is truth in the version given by him in the FIR.  The version given <\/p>\n
by   him   in   the   FIR   is   correct   and   his   behaviour   also   appears   to   be   quite <\/p>\n
possible.  Possibly PW-4 was afraid as he was threatened by the appellant as <\/p>\n
stated  by  him  and also  because   he  had seen  the  offence  being committed <\/p>\n
before him  and for  that reason he  did  not  dare  to go  to the  police  station <\/p>\n
immediately but he talked to the parents of the deceased on telephone.   It <\/p>\n
has come in evidence that the parents of the deceased asked him to await <\/p>\n
till their arrival and thereafter he gathered courage to file an FIR only after <\/p>\n
having   discussion   with   them.       The   parents   of   the   deceased   came   to   his <\/p>\n
                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
place and gave him necessary courage and strength to tell the truth before <\/p>\n
the   police   authorities.     Though   there   was   delay   in   filing   of   the   FIR,   the <\/p>\n
contents of the FIR are not incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
20.    The story put forward by the accused in his FIR does not appear to be <\/p>\n
correct.  On the contrary, we find truth in the FIR filed by PW-4, because the <\/p>\n
injuries   inflicted   upon   the   accused   prima   facie   appear   to   be   self   inflicted.\n<\/p>\n
Looking   to   the   nature   of   bullet   injuries   suffered   by   the   accused,   it   is   very <\/p>\n
clear   that   he   was   shot   from   a   very   close   range.     The   said   fact   can   be <\/p>\n
revealed from the presence of burn injuries – black area around the wound of <\/p>\n
the bullet.  Had it been fired from a distance, the presence of burn injuries or <\/p>\n
dark  marks around the wound would not have been there.  When a weapon <\/p>\n
is fired from a close range, normally gun powder which comes along with the <\/p>\n
bullet   makes   dark   burn   marks   around   the   wound.     Both   wounds   on   the <\/p>\n
accused are having such black marks which would not have been there if, in <\/p>\n
fact, he had been shot from a distance as the burnt gun powder does not go <\/p>\n
much   far   from   the   muzzle   of   the   weapon.     Presence   of   dark   burn   marks <\/p>\n
around the wound shows that the bullet injury had been inflicted from a very <\/p>\n
close distance. Such burn marks would not have been there if in fact he had <\/p>\n
been running away from the car. Thus, the story put forward by the accused <\/p>\n
in   his   FIR   about   his   being   shot   by   another   person   does   not   appear   to   be <\/p>\n
correct.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
21.    With regard to recovery of the pistol, the learned counsel is right that <\/p>\n
the pistol was recovered from a public place but it was recovered from the <\/p>\n
place which could not have been easily located by anyone and, therefore, the <\/p>\n
accused   cannot   get   benefit   which   the   learned   counsel   wanted   him   to   get.\n<\/p>\n
From the memo of recovery, it is clear that the pistol had been   hidden by <\/p>\n
digging  earth under a plant of Sarkanda about half a kilometer  away from <\/p>\n
bridge   of  Ladhuwala   Uttar.     Thus,   it   is   very   clear   that   the  pistol   had  been <\/p>\n
hidden by digging earth under the plant of Sarkanda about half a kilometer <\/p>\n
away   on   the   eastern   katcha   path   from   bridge   of   Ladhuwala   Uttar   and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   in   our   opinion,   the   recovery   cannot   be   said   to   be   from   a   place <\/p>\n
which could have been easily accessible to anyone.\n<\/p>\n
22.    With regard to recovery memo, the mistake committed in writing the <\/p>\n
word     `witness’   or   `witnesses’   can   not   be   said   to   be   so   material   so   as   to <\/p>\n
adversely   affect   the   case   of   the   prosecution.     In   our   opinion,   such   trivial <\/p>\n
mistakes should not give any benefit of doubt or any sort of benefit to the <\/p>\n
accused.     In   fact,   the   recovery   was   made   in   presence   of   Ajaib   Singh, <\/p>\n
Assistant   Sub   Inspector   and   Balbir   Singh,   Head   Constable.     It   is   also   not <\/p>\n
correct   that   the   memo   of   recovery   was   not   produced   before   the   Court.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit   P.46,   which   reveals   the   fact   about   the   statement   made   by   the <\/p>\n
accused in relation to pistol incorporates the entire statement made by the <\/p>\n
accused.     Therefore,   the   said   document   itself   incorporates   the   statement <\/p>\n
made   by   the   accused.     Moreover,   simply   because   the   recovery   was   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
presence  of policemen  would  not  adversely affect  the prosecution  case.    A <\/p>\n
police officer can be a reliable witness if the court finds him to be a truthful <\/p>\n
person and in that event there is no harm in relying upon his statement.  In <\/p>\n
the   circumstances,   we   do   not   find   anything   objectionable   if   the   pistol   had <\/p>\n
been recovered in the presence of policemen.\n<\/p>\n
23.    With regard to ownership of the pistol, it has been established by the <\/p>\n
prosecution   that   for   a   sum   of   Rs.90,000\/-   the   accused   had   purchased   the <\/p>\n
pistol on 29-5-2001 whereas the offence had been committed on the night of <\/p>\n
9th June, 2001.  Thus, the pistol had already been purchased by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
It is also pertinent to note that intimation with regard to the sale of the pistol <\/p>\n
had  also   been  given  by the  seller   of the  pistol   Jagtar  Singh  (PW-9)  to  the <\/p>\n
licensing authority and the said fact was established by P.W.8 who is working <\/p>\n
in   the   office   of   the   D.C.,   the   Licensing   authority.     Moreover,   a   sum   of <\/p>\n
Rs.90,000\/-   was   paid   by  the   accused   for   purchase   of   the  pistol   which   had <\/p>\n
been used in the offence.   Thus, with regard to ownership and possession of <\/p>\n
the  pistol,   the  prosecution   has   proved   beyond   any  doubt   that   the  accused <\/p>\n
was not only owner of the pistol in question but was also having possession <\/p>\n
thereof.  It is also in evidence that the bullets which had caused injury to the <\/p>\n
deceased were fired from the said pistol.   Mere non-production of a receipt <\/p>\n
issued by Jagtar Singh (PW-9) would not make case of the prosecution weak <\/p>\n
as it has been duly established that the pistol was sold to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
24.    From the aforestated discussion and upon perusal of the evidence, we <\/p>\n
                                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
are satisfied that the trial court as well as the High Court, while confirming <\/p>\n
the order of conviction, are not in error and the order of conviction deserves <\/p>\n
to be confirmed.  The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ………………………………………..
\nJ <\/p>\n
                                                        (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM <\/p>\n
SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                                               ……………………………\n<\/p>\n
…….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
February 18, 2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 Author: …….J. Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave 1 NON- REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1237 OF 2008 GURJINDER SINGH …..APPELLANT. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-25636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - 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\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-04T11:58:41+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T11:58:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3094,\"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\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-04T11:58:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - 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\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-04T11:58:41+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T11:58:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011"},"wordCount":3094,"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\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011","name":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-04T11:58:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurjinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/25636","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=25636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}