{"id":265899,"date":"1973-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973"},"modified":"2015-08-25T02:49:45","modified_gmt":"2015-08-24T21:19:45","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2407, 1974 SCR (1) 328<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGIR SINGH AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/08\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2407\t\t  1974 SCR  (1) 328\n 1974 SCC  (3) 277\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1973 SC2773\t (25)\n R\t    1977 SC 472\t (13)\n R\t    1983 SC 867\t (25)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal practice and procedure-Appreciation of evidence and\nsentence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondents were convicted of murder and  sentenced  to\ndeath.\tThe High Court acquitted them in appeal.\nIn appeal to this Court, setting aside the acquittal,\nHELD : (1) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein\none  is\t free  to  give\t flight\t to  one's  imagination\t and\nphantasy.   It\tconcerns  itself with  the  question  as  to\nwhether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of\t the\ncrime  with which he is charged.  Crime is an event in\treal\nlife  and  is the product of interplay\tof  different  human\nemotions.  In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt  of\nthe  accused  charged with the commission of  a\t crime,\t the\ncourt  has  to\tjudge  the  evidence  by  the  yardstick  of\nprobabilities,\tits  intrinsic\tworth  and  the\t animus\t  of\nwitnesses.   Every case in the final analysis would have  to\ndepend\tupon its own facts.  Although the benefit  of  every\nreasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the  courts\nshould\tnot  at the same time reject evidence  which  is  ex\nfacie  trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or  in\t the\nnature of conjectures. [337F-H]\nIn  the\t present  case,\t the High  Court  has  rejected\t the\nprosecution  evidence  which was ex facie  of  a  convincing\nnature on grounds which partake of the nature of conjectures\nand  surmises.\t The  view  taken  by  the  High  Court\t  is\nmanifestly  unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage  of\njustice.  A perusal of the judgment of the High Court  shows\nthat  in acquitting the accused respondents, the High  Court\napproached  the\t entire matter in a spirit of  distrust\t and\nsuspicion  of the various officers who dealt with the  case.\n[337H-338B]\n(2)  The   High\t Court,\t while\trejecting  the\t prosecution\nevidence,  made\t unwarranted  criticism\t couched  in   harsh\nlanguage  about\t the  magistrate who received  the  copy  of\nF.I.R.,\t the  doctor,  the  investigating  officer  and\t the\nSessions Judge who tried the case. [337E-F]\n(3)  In\t view  of  the fact that more  than  two  years\t had\nelapsed\t since the High Court acquitted the respondents,  it\nwould  be  more\t appropriate  to  sentence  the\t accused  to\nimprisonment  for  life instead of to the  extreme  penalty.\n[338B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  7  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special Leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\n25-2-1971  of  the  Punjab and Haryana High  Court  in\tCrl.
\nAppeal No. 1031\/70.\n<\/p>\n
A. N. Mulla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
\nNuruddin Ahmed and R. L. Kohli, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKHANNA,\t J.   Nine accused Jagir Singh\t(27),  Baljit  Singh
\n(36), Karam Singh (30), Amarjit Singh (38), Atma Singh (27).
\nChsnan\tSingh (22), Tarlok Singh (19), Joginder\t Singh\t(22)
\nand  Swarn  Singh (23) were tried in the court\tof  Sessions
\nJudge Gurdasnur in connection, with an occurrence which took
\nplace  on  July 8, 1948 in village Longowal Khurd.   In\t the
\ncourse\tof that occurrence Labh Singh (35),  Joginder  Singh
\n(30,) and Lakha Singh (25) received fatal in-\n<\/p>\n
329<\/span><\/p>\n
juries.\t Injuries were also received by Ajit Singh,  Jarnail
\nSingh,\tMohinder  Singh\t and  Harbans  Singh  PWs.   Learned
\nSessions Judge convicted Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh  under
\nsection 302<\/a> Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing\t the
\ndeath  of  Joginder  Singh  and\t Lakha\tSingh  deceased\t and
\nsentenced them to death on each count.\tThe said two accused
\nwere  also convicted under section 302<\/a> read with section  34<\/a>
\nIndian\tPenal  Code in connection with the  murder  of\tLabh
\nSingh and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on
\nthat  account.\t In  addition to  that,\t the  aforesaid\t two
\naccused\t were convicted under section 307<\/a> Indian Penal\tCode
\non  four counts for the injuries caused to  Mohinder  Singh,
\nAjit  Singh,  Jarnail Singh and Harbans Singh PWs  and\twere
\nsentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period  of
\nthree  years  on  each\tcount.\t Karam\tSingh  accused\t was
\nconvicted  under section 302<\/a> Indian Penal Code\tfor  causing
\nthe death of Labh Singh deceased and was sentenced to death.
\nIn  connection\twith the death of Joginder Singh  and  Lakha
\nSingh, Karam Singh was convicted under section 302<\/a> read with
\nsection 34<\/a> Indian Penal Code on two counts and was sentenced
\nto  undergo  imprisonment  for life.  Karam  Singh  was,  in
\naddition,  convicted under section 307<\/a> read with section  34<\/a>
\nIndian Penal Code for injuries caused to Ajit Singh, Jarnail
\nSingh, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh and was sentenced to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on
\neach  count.   The remaining six accused were  acquitted  by
\nthe,  Sessions Judge.  On appeal and reference,\t the  Punjab
\nand  Haryana High Court acquitted Jagir Singh, Baljit  Singh
\nand  Karam Singh by giving them the benefit of\tdoubt.\t The
\nState  of Punjab has now come up in appeal to this Court  by
\nspecial\t leave\tagainst\t the  judgment\tof  the\t High  Court
\nacquitting the above mentioned three accused respondents.
\nOut  of\t the nine accused, Karam Singh,\t Amarjit  Singh\t and
\nBaljit Singh are brothers.  Likewise, Jagir Singh,  Joginder
\nSingh  and Tarlok Singh accused are brothers.  Chanan  Singh
\naccused,  who is a constable in the Border  Security  Force,
\nadd  Swarn  Singh  accused too\tare  brothers.\t Atma  Singh
\naccused\t is the maternal uncle of Jagir Singh.\tAmongst\t the
\nthree  deceased persons, Labh Singh and Joginder Singh\twere
\nbrothers.   Chanan Singh (PW 8) and Mohinder Singh  (PW\t 27)
\nare  the  brothers of those two deceased  persons.   Harbans
\nSingh (PW 21 ) is brother of Lakha Singh deceased.
\nThe prosecution case is that the relations between the party
\nof  the\t accused  and  that of\tthe  deceased  persons\twere
\nstrained for about 10 or 12 years before the occurrence, and
\nthe  two groups had since then been involved in a number  of
\ncross\tcriminal   cases.   About  two\tyears\tbefore\t the
\noccurrence, Lakha Singh deceased along with some others\t had
\ncaused\tinjuries  to Atma Singh and Puran  Singh,  uncle  of
\nJagir  Singh accused.  A criminal case was on  that  account
\npending\t in. the court of Magistrate Batala.  July  8,\t1968
\nwas the date of hearing in that case and on that day  Chanan
\nSingh (PW 8) accompanied Lakha Singh to the court at  Batala
\nfor  pursuing that case.  After the proceedings of the\tcase
\nwere  over, Chanan Singh (PW 8) came back with\tLakha  Singh
\ndeceased  to his house in village Longowal Khurd.   Longowal
\nKhurd  is at a distance of about two-and-a-half\t miles\tfrom
\nBatala.\t  The  house of Labh Singh deceased was at  a  short
\ndistance from that
\n330<\/span>
\nof  Lakha  Singh in Longowal Khurd.  Chanan  Singh (PW\t8)
\nhimself\t lived in Longowal Kalan which is at a\tdistance  of
\nabout two and a half furlongs from Longowal Khurd.
\nWhen  Chanan Singh (PW 8) was still present at the house  of
\nLakha Singh deceased, it is stated, they heard the noise  of
\nchangars  (challenging shouts) from near the, house of\tLabh
\nSingh deceased.\t Hearing the noise of changars, Lakha  Singh
\ndeceased and his brother Harbans Singh, (PW 21) went to\t the
\nhouse of Labh Singh.  Chanan Singh PW also followed them  to
\nthe house. of Labk Singh.  On arrival there Chanan Singh (PW\n<\/p>\n
8) found Labh Singh, Joginder Singh and Lahha Singh deceased
\nas  well  as  Ajit Singh (PW 19),  Jarnail  Singh  (PW\t22),
\nMohinder  Singh (PW 27), Harbans Singh (PW 21),\t Bawa  Singh
\n(PW  25) and Chanan Singh (PW 26), present in the  courtyard
\nof Labh Sigh’s house.  Joginder Kaufman, wife of Labh Singh,
\nand  Harbans  Kaur,  wife of Bawa Singh,  too  were  present
\nthere.\t The nine accused are then stated to have come\tnear
\nthe  compound wall of the courtyard of Labh  Singh’s  house.
\nThe  compound  wall was about sixand-a-half feet  high\tfrom
\noutside\t and four-and-a half feet high from  inside  because
\nthe courtyard was at a higher level than the ground outside.
\nAt  the\t instigation of Tarlok Singh, Atma Singh  and  Swarn
\nSingh  accused, it is stated, Jagir Singh and  Baljit  Singh
\naccused\t threw one hand-grenade each into the  courtyard  of
\nLabh Singh’s house.  Both the hand-grenades exploded in\t the
\ncourtyard  as a result of which Labh Singh,  Joginder  Singh
\nand Lakha Singh deceased and Mohinder Singh, Jarnail  Singh,
\nAjit Singh and Harbans Singh PWs received injuries.  All the nine
\naccused then came inside the courtyard of the house of
\nLabh Singh deceased.  Karam Singh and Amarjit Singh  accused
\nwere armed with spears.\t Tarlok Singh, Joginder Singh,\tAtma
\nSingh,\tChanan\tSingh and Swarn Singh accused  had  kirpans,
\nwhile Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh were empty handed.  Karam
\nSingh accused on arrival delivered a spear blow in the\tleft
\nflank  of Labh Singh deceased.\tAmarjit Singh  accused\talso
\ngave a spear blow on the right arm of Labh accused     dealt
\na kirpan blow on the nose of Harbans Singh PW, while  Chanan
\nSingh  accused gave a blow with his sheathed kirpan  on\t the
\nback of\t  Mohinder  Singh PW.  Swarn Singh  accused  stepped
\ntowards Chanan Singh,.\t(PW  8)\t for attacking\thim  with  a
\nkirpan\twhereupon Chanan Singh (PW 8) took up a\t panda\tfrom
\nthe courtyard of Labh Singh and brandished it towards  Swarn
\nSingh.\t One  blow  with that danda was given  on  the\tleft
\nshoulder  of  Swarn  Singh accused.  Those  present  in\t the
\ncourtyard  also raised alarm whereupon the nine accused\t ran
\naway.\n<\/p>\n
Some water was then poured into the mouth of Labh Singh, but
\nhe succumbed to the injuries received by Mm.  Mohinder Singh
\nand Harbans Singh PWs then brought a cart from the house  of
\nCharlie\t Singh\t(PW  8).  Lakha\t Singh\tand  Joginder  Singh
\ndeceased  were\tlaid  an that cart.  Chanan  Singh  (PW\t 8),
\nHarbans\t Singh,\t Sarjan Singh and Mohinder Singh  then\ttook
\nthat  cart to Batala hospital.\tWhen they arrived  near\t the
\nhospital,  Chanan Singh (PW 8) went to police station  Sadar
\nBatala and lodged there report P.A. at 11.15 p.m.
\n331<\/span>
\nSub Inspector Kehar Singh (PW 30) then went to the hospital.
\nBefore doing so, the Sub Inspector deputed two Assistant Sub
\nInspectors  and four constables to proceed to the place of
\noccurrence.  Sub Inspector Kehar Singh found Lakha Singh and
\nJoginder Singh present in the hospital.\t Their injuries were
\nbeing  examined by Dr. N. S. Dhillon when the Sub  Inspector
\narrived\t there.\t On the applications of the  Sub  Inspector,
\nDr.  Dhillon  made an endorsement that\tJoginder  Singh\t and
\nLakha  Singh were in fit condition to make statements.\t The
\nSub  Inspector\tthen deputed a head constable  to  call\t the
\nmagistrate having jurisdiction in the area.  It was  raining
\nheavily\t at that time and as the magistrate did not  arrive,
\nthe  Sub Inspector recorded the dying declarations of  Lakha
\nSingh  and  Joginder Singh in the presence of  Dr.  Dhillon.
\nThe condition of Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh was found to
\nbe serious and so they were sent to V. J. Hospital Amritsar.
\nSub Inspector Kehar Singh then went from Batala hospital  to
\nthe place of occurrence and reached there at 5 a.m. The\t Sub
\nInspector found the dead body of Labh Singh lying on a\tcot.
\nThe  Sub Inspector prepared inquest report relating  to\t the
\ndead body of Labh Singh.  Blood-stained earth was taken into
\npossession  from  three\t places in  the\t courtyard  of\tLabh
\nSingh’s house.\tThe, Sub Inspector also took into possession
\nlever  PI,  percussion cap P2 and four\tpieces\tof  exploded
\nhand-grenade from the place of occurrence and put them\tinto
\na sealed parcel.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries of Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Jarnail Singh were
\nexamined  by Dr. N. S. Dhillon on July 9. Harbans Singh\t was
\nfound  to have two lacerated wounds, one on his right  index
\nfinger\tand the other on the bridge of his nose.   Both\t the
\ninjuries  were grievous.  Ajit Singh was found to  have\t one
\npunctured wound with averted lacerated margins on his  right
\nthigh,\twhile Jarnail Singh had one lacerated wound  on\t the
\nright  side  of his neck.  The injuries of  Ajit  Singh\t and
\nJarnail\t Singh were found to be simple.\t Mohinder Singh\t was
\nexamined by Dr. S. P. Mago on July 10, 1968 and was found to
\nhave four simple injuries on his person.\n<\/p>\n
Lakha  Singh  and  Joginder Singh who were  sent  to  V.  J.
\nHospital Amritsar succumbed to their injuries on July 10 and
\n11, 1968 respectively.\tPost mortem examination on the\tdead
\nbodies\tof Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh was  performed  by
\nDr. Narinder Mohan on July 11, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
The  lever, precussion cap and the other parts of the  hand-
\ngrenades  which\t had  been  recovered  from  the  place\t  of
\noccurrence  were  sent\tto PW 20 Shri  J.  M.  John,  Senior
\nInspector  of Explosives.  Shri John expressed\tthe  opinion
\nthat  the  above articles were the remnants of\tan  exploded
\nhand-grenade.\n<\/p>\n
At  the\t trial\tthe  plea of the  nine\taccused\t was  denial
\nsimpliciter.   Chanan Singh and Swarn Singh accused, in\t the
\ncourse of their statements ‘ also added that they had  heard
\nchangers  on the night of occurrence at about 10  p.m.\tfrom
\nthe  direction of guru dwarf.  The explosion of a  bomb\t was
\nalso  heard at that time but these two accused did not\tstir
\nout of their houses.  Defence evidence was led on behalf  of
\nthe accused.  The purport of the defence evidence was  that
\none
\n332<\/span>
\nBachan\tSingh  had been admitted into Batala  Hospital\twith
\nmultiple  injuries on the night between July 8 and 9,  1968.
\nA metallic substance was thereafter recovered from the\tbody
\nof Bachan Singh on July 20, 1968.  Defence evidence was also
\nled  to show that Labh Singh deceased, who was a bus  driver
\nof  the\t Punjab Roadways, was away to Pathankot at  about  7
\np.m. on the day of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t Sessions  Judge  found that  the  prosecution\tcase
\nagainst Joginder Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh accused
\nhad been proved beyond any shadow of doubt.  He accepted the
\nocular\tevidence  produced  in\tthe  case.   Reliance\twas,
\nhowever,  not  placed upon the dying declarations  of  Lakha
\nSingh  and Joginder Singh.  The remaining six  accused\twere
\ngiven  the  benefit of doubt and were acquitted.   The\tHigh
\nCourt on appeal and reference acquitted Jagir Singh,  Baljit
\nSingh  and  Karam Singh also by giving them the\t benefit  of
\ndoubt for reasons which would be dealt with hereafter.
\nIn   appeal   before  us  Mr.  Mulla  on   behalf   of\t the
\nappellant state has argued that the High Court was in  error
\nin  setting  aside  the conviction  of\tthe  three  accused-
\nrespondents  and  the  view  taken by  the  High  Court\t was
\nmanifestly  unreasonable.  As against that Mr.\tNuruddin  on
\nbehalf of the respondents has canvassed for the\t correctness
\nof  the\t view  taken by the High Court.\t There\tis,  in\t our
\nopinion, considerable force in the stand taken on behalf  of
\nthe  appellant.\t The evidence of Dr. Dhillon, who  performed
\npostmortem examination on the body of Labh Singh, shows that
\nthere  were five injuries on the body of the deceased.\t Out
\nof  them, three could be caused with a\thand-grenade,  while
\ntwo had been caused with a sharp pointed weapon.  One of the
\nlast two mentioned injuries was a punctured incised wound on
\nthe back of the right forearm, while the other injury.was as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Punctured  incised wound 1″X3\/4″\t with  clean
\n\t      cut  margins,  over  5th\trib  and  5th\tleft
\n\t      intercostal  space in mid axillary  line\twith
\n\t      fracture\tof  5th rib, puncture of  left\tlung
\n\t      near  the\t fissure, went\tthrough\t the  entire
\n\t      lung,  cross  punctured  the  walls  of\tleft
\n\t      auricle,\thaematoma over the lung and  pleural
\n\t      cavity pleura punctured left side, pericardium
\n\t      puncture”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The above mentioned injury was sufficient in ordinary course
\nof  nature  to cause death.  The evidence  of  Dr.  Narinder
\nMohan, who performed postmortem examination on the bodies of
\nJoginder  Singh and Lakha Singh, shows that  Joginder  Singh
\nhad  three  lacerated wounds which could be  caused  with  a
\nhand-grenade.  Likewise, Lakha Singh had two injuries  which
\ncould  be caused with a hand-grenade.  The following  injury
\nof  Joginder  Singh  was sufficient in\tordinary  course  of
\nnature to cause death :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  penetrating  wound 1-1\/2″  roundish,\twith
\n\t      lacerated margins 1″‘ to the left of the\tmid-
\n\t      epigastric  line 3″ above the  umbilicus\twith
\n\t      omentum  seen out of the wound.  There was  no
\n\t      charring of the margins.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
333<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the\t case of Lakha Singh, the fatal injury\twas  in\t the
\nabdominal cavity.  Operation had been performed at the\tsite
\nof the injury in an attempt to save Lakha Singh.
\nAccording to the prosecution case, the hand-grenade injuries
\nto  the\t three\tdeceased  persons  and\tinjured\t prosecution
\nwitnesses  were\t caused\t by Jagir  Singh  and  Baljit  Singh
\naccused when they threw the handgrenades in the courtyard of
\nLabh  Singh’s  house.\tIt  is\tfurther\t the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution  that the fatal punctured incised wound  in\t mid
\naxillary  line\tof Labh Singh deceased was caused  by  Karam
\nSingh  accused\twhen he gave the spear blow  to\t Labh  Singh
\ndeceased.    The  prosecution  in  support  of\t the   above
\nallegations has examined Chanan Singh (PW 9), Ajit Singh (PW\n<\/p>\n
19),  Harbans  Singh (PW 21), Jarnail Singh  (PW  22),\tBawa
\nSingh  (PW  25), Chanan Singh s\/o Sawan Singh  (PW  26)\t and
\nMohinder  Singh (PW 27) as eye witnesses of the\t occurrence.
\nThere appears, in our opinion. to be no cogent ground as  to
\nwhy   the  evidence  of\t the  above  mention’ed\t  witnesses.
\nregarding  the complicity of the accused-respondents be\t not
\naccepted.   It\tis,  no doubt, true as pointed\tout  by\t Mr.
\nNuruddin,  that these witnesses belong to the party  of\t the
\ndeceased but that fact, in our opinion, would only make\t the
\ncourt  scrutinise  the\tevidence  of  these  witnesses\tmore
\nclosely.  If their evidence can stand that test, as it\tdoes
\nin the present case, there is no reason why it should not be
\nacted  upon.  Some of the witnesses are close  relatives  of
\nthe  deceased  persons and it is most difficult\t to  believe
\nthat  they  would  spare the  real  assailants\tand  falsely
\nmention\t the names of innocent persons as having caused\t the
\ninjuries   to  the  deceased  persons.\t Four  of  the\t eye
\nwitnesses,  namely, Ajit Singh (PW 19), liarbans  Singh\t (PW\n<\/p>\n
21),  Jarnail  Singh  (PW 22) and  Mohinder  Singh  (PW\t 27)
\nreceived   injuries  during  the  course  of   the   present
\noccurrence  and there can be hardly any manner of doubt\t re-
\ngarding\t their presence at the scene of occurrence.   It  is
\nnot  possible to accept the contention that these  witnesses
\nin  spite  of the attack upon them and\tthe  three  deceased
\npersons failed to fix the identity of the assailants.
\nAnother fact of which note should be taken is that the first
\ninformation  report in this case was lodged at\t11.15  p.m.,
\nwithin a few hours of the occurrence.  Although Mr. Nuruddin
\nhas  urged  that  there\t was  delay  in\t lodging  the  first
\ninformation  report,  we find it difficult  to\taccept\tthis
\nsubmission.   The occurrence, according to  the\t prosecution
\ncase, took place at 7.15 p.m. As a result of the occurrence,
\nLabh  Singh died soon thereafter, while Joginder  Singh\t and
\nLakha Singh received serious injuries.\tIn addition to that,
\nfour  prosecution witnesses also received injuries.   It  is
\nplain  that the prosecution witnesses must have got  stunned
\nbecause\t of  the sudden occurrence in the  course  of  which
\nthree  of  their  close relatives  received  injuries  which
\nultimately  proved fatal and four others were also  injured.
\nAttempt was made to pour water into the mouth of Labh  Singh
\ndeceased but Labh Singh died soon thereafter.  It must\thave
\ntaken  some time for Chanan Singh and others to get out\t of
\nthe  state of shock and regain their composure’.  They\tthen
\narranged  for a cart which was brought from  Chanan  Singh’s
\nhouse  in  Longowal Kalan.  Joginder Singh and\tLakha  Singh
\nwere  then  laid  in that cart and the\tsame  was  taken  to
\nBatala, at a distance of
\n334<\/span>
\ntwo-and-a-half\tmiles.\tIt cannot, in the circumstances,  be
\nsaid  that  the\t period of four hours  which  was  taken  in
\nlodging\t the  report at the police station was\tin  any\t way
\ninordinately  long.   The fact that  the  first\t information
\nreport was lodged at the time it Purports to have been\tdone
\ncan  also  be  not disputed because  the  first\t lnformation
\nreport was received by the magistrate having jurisdiction in
\nthe area at 1 a.m. as is borne out by the endorsement of the
\nmagistrate  on\tthe report.  The first\tinformation  report,
\nlodged\tat  the\t police station within a few  hours  of\t the
\noccurrence,  contained all the, material facts and,  in\t our
\nopinion,  the  first information report\t lends\tconsiderable
\ncorroboration to the ocular evidence adduced at the trial.
\nThe   defence  suggestion  which  was  put  in\t the   cross
\nexamination  of the prosecution witnesses was that a  number
\nof  persons had Collected near the village gurudwara when  a
\nhand-grenade  exploded there and the three deceased  persons
\nand  the  prosecution  witnesses  received  injuries.\tThis
\nsuggestion,  in the circumstances of the case, was,  in\t our
\nopinion,  wholly unfounded.  The evidence of  Sub  Inspector
\nKehar  Singh  shows  that when he arrived at  the  scene  of
\noccurrence, he found the different pieces of exploded  hand-
\ngrenade\t in  the  courtyard  of\t the  house  of\t Labh  Singh
\ndeceased.   This fact would tend to show that the  explosion
\nhad  taken place in the courtyard and not at the  gurudwar-.
\nIt  is also not clear as to what advantage  the\t prosecution
\nwould  have  derived  in suppressing  the  actual  place  of
\noccurrence  and in mentioning a wrong place  of\t occurrence.
\nAs would appear from the narration of facts, only members of
\none party received injuries as a result of the explosion  of
\nhand-grenade.\tIf the hand-grenade had exploded in a  large
\ngathering near the village gurudwara, it is not likely\tthat
\nthe  splinters from the exploded hand-grenade would hit\t the
\nmembers\t of only one party and avoid those not belonging  to
\nthat party.  Labh Singh deceased at the time of the  present
\noccurrence was wearing only a kachha besides a parna, on his
\nhead.\tIt is not likely that Labh Singh would have gone  in
\nthat  state  without  a shirt to  the  gatliering  near\t the
\nvillage\t gurudwara.   On the contrary, the  fact  that\tLabh
\nSingh  was without a shirt points to the inference that\t the
\noccurrence took place in the courtyard of his house.
\nThe  High  Court while rejecting  the  prosecution  evidence
\nreferred to the fact that in one of the plans, height of the
\nouter  wall  of\t the courtyard of  Labb\t Singh’s  house\t was
\nmentioned  to  be  6-1\/2  ft. while in\tthe  other,  it\t was
\nmentioned  to  be  4-1\/2  ft.\tThis  discrepancy  has\tbeen
\nexplained  by  Bal Kishan Draftsman (PW 9),  whose  evidence
\nshows that the level of the courtyard of Labh Singh’s  house
\nwas  higher  than  the ground outside.\tThe  height  of\t the
\nboundary  wall\tconsequently measured to be  6-1\/2  ft\tfrom
\noutside\t and 4-1\/2 ft from inside.  No question was  put  to
\nthe witness in cross-examination, and we can find no  cogent
\nreason as to why the evidence of Bal Kishan be not accepted.
\nThere could also, in our opinion, be no difficulty for those
\npresent inside the courtyard from seeing as to who were\t the
\npersons\t who threw the hand-grenades, because a 41  ft\thigh
\nwall could not obstruct their view in fixing the identity of
\nthe culprits.\n<\/p>\n
335<\/span><\/p>\n
Another\t circumstance which weighed with ‘the High Court  in
\nrejecting  the\tprosecution evidence was the nature  of\t the
\ninjury, on the nose of Harbans Singh (PW 21).  According  to
\nthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the above  injury
\nhad  been caused with a kirpan by Joginder Singh.  The\tHigh
\nCourt took the view that the said injury had been caused  by
\na hand-grenade splinter.  It was ‘held that as the witnesses
\nhad  deposed  that the injury had been caused  by  a  kirpan
\nblow, the evidence of the witnesses was not trustworthy.  In
\nthis respect we find that the evidence of Dr. Dhillon  shows
\nthat  he expressed the opinion in answer to a  police  query
\nthat the injury on the nose of Harbans Singh could have been
\ncaused\twith  a\t kirpan.  It is, no  doubt,  true  that\t Dr.
\nDhillon\t also  expressed the opinion that  the\tsaid  injury
\ncould  have  been caused by a missile or other\tobject,\t but
\nthis fact would not necessarily show that the eye  witnesses
\nin this case have made false statements regarding the injury
\non the nose of Harbans Singh.  In order to draw an inference
\nabout  the falsity of the evidence of prosecution  witnesses
\nin this respect, it is not enough to show that the injury on
\nthe nose of Harbans Singh could have been caused either with
\na kirpan or with a missile, it is also necessary to rule out
\nthe Possibility of the said injury having been caused with a
\nkirpan.\t  The evidence of Dr. Dhillon plainly does not\trule
\nout such a possibility.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court also appears to have been impressed  by\t the
\ndefence\t version  that Labh Singh deceased  was\t present  in
\nPathankot  at  about  7\t p.m.  on  the\tday  of\t occurrence.
\nReliance  in this context was placed upon tile testimony  of
\nRadhey Sham (DW 3) who was conductor of Bus PNP 6972 and who
\nhas  deposed  about  Labh Singh having driven  that  bus  to
\nPathankot  on  the,  day of occurrence and  about  that\t bus
\nhaving reached Pathankot at 7 p.m. We find it most difficult
\nto accept this statement of Radhey Sham in the face of other
\nevidence   brought  on\tthe  record  and   the\t surrounding
\ncircumstances  of the case.  Dalip Singh (PW 11) is  a\tyard
\nmaster of Punjab Roadways depot at Pathankot.  The  evidence
\nof  this  witness  was given on the basis  of  the  relevant
\nrecords.   According to this witness, two drivers  had\tbeen
\nallotted  for the bus in question and they were Labli  Singh
\ndeceased  and Piara Singh (PW 12).  Dalip Singh’s  testimony
\nshows  that on the day of occurrence it was Piara Singh\t who
\nbrought\t the bus in question to Pathankot at 7 p.m.  As\t the
\nevidence  of this witness is based upon the records , it  is
\ndifficult  to discard his testimony.  The evidence of  Dalip
\nSingh  gets corroboration from the testimony of Piara  Singh
\nwho has deposed that when the said bus arrived at Batala  at
\nabout  5  p.m.\ton the day of occurrence  on  its  way\tfrom
\nAmritsar  to  Pathankot,  the witness  relieved\t Labh  Singh
\ndeceased.   Labh Singn then got down from the-bus at  Batala
\nand  the witness took it to Pathankot.\tAnother witness\t who
\nhas  been examined on the point is Yes Raj (DW 2),  who\t was
\nthe   booking  clerk  of  the  Punjab  Roadways\t office\t  at
\nPathankot.  According to this witness, the advance way\tbill
\nof the bus in question showed that its driver was Labh Singh
\nwhen  it left Amritsar for Pthankot.  The witness,  however,
\nadmitted  that\tthe entry in the way bill was  made  at\t the
\ncommencement  of  the journey.\tIn  the\t circumstances,\t the
\nevidence of the witness is quite consistent with Labh  Singh
\nhaving been relieved by Piara Singh at Batala.\n<\/p>\n
336<\/span><\/p>\n
Labh  Singh  admittedly\t died  during  the  course  of\tthis
\noccurrence.   Had he been at Batala at 7 p.m. on the day  of
\noccurrence, it is not likely that he could have reached\t his
\nvillage before 9.30 or 10 p.m. on the day of occurrence.  It
\nis  in\tevidence that a bus takes two hours to\ttravel\tfrom
\nPathankot  to  Batala.\tIt is difficult to  believe  that  a
\nreport\tabout  the occurrence at Longowal Khurd\t could\thave
\nbeen lodged at Batala Sadar police station at 11-15 p.m. if,
\nin  fact,  the occurrence had taken place after 9.30  or  10
\np.m.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t also  not  impressed  by  the\treasoning  that\t the
\noccurrence  took  place\t at  a late hour  when\tit  was\t not
\npossible to fix the identity of the assailants.\t The case of
\nthe   prosecution,  as\tmentioned  earlier,  is\t  that\t the
\noccurrence took place at 7.15 p.m. The sun set on the day of
\noccurrence  ,it 7.28 p.m. There was full moon on July 9\t and
\nthe occurrence took place a day earlier than that.  As\tthe
\noccurrence  took  place before sun set there could,  in\t our
\nopinion\t be  no difficultly in fixing the  identity  of\t the
\nassailants.   Even if the occurrence had taken\tplace  after
\nthe  sun-set  time, there could still be  no  difficulty  in
\nfinding\t out  as to who the assailants were.   A  number  of
\npersons were present in the courtyard of Labh Singh’s house.
\nThere is no suggestion that a lamp had been lighted at\tthat
\ntime.  The fact that a large number of persons were  present
\nin  the\t courtyard without lighting a lamp would  show\tthat
\nthere was enough light at that time.  It is also significant
\nthat the assailants gave two Barcha blows to Labh Singh\t de-
\nceased.\t If there was enough light to enable the  assailants
\nto  fix the identity of Labh Singh before they\tgave  Barcha
\nblows to him, it stands to reason that the same light  would
\nbe  enough for others to see as to who the assailants  were.
\nWe, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting, the argument
\nthat there was not enough light at the time of occurrence to
\nenable\tthe  prosecution witnesses to fix identity  of\tthe,
\nculprits.\n<\/p>\n
Another\t factor\t which\tweighed\t with  the  High  Court\t  in
\ndiscarding  the prosecution evidence was that  Bachan  Singh
\n(DW 6) was admitted in Batala hospital a few minutes  before
\nJoginder Singh and Lakba Singh deceased were brought  there.
\nAccording to the testimony of Dr. N. S. Dhillon, a  metallic
\nforeign substance was recovered from the arm of Bachan Singh
\non July 20, 1968.  The High Court took the view that  Bachan
\nSingh too had been injured during the course of the  present
\noccurrence and the fact that no reference was made to Bachan
\nSingh  either  in  the first information report\t or  in\t the
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses would go to show\tthat
\nthe prosecution evidence is not worthy of credence.  In this
\nrespect we find that Bachan Singh was examined as a  defence
\nwitness.  Bachan Singh in the course of his evidence  denied
\nbeing  present\tat the scene of occurrence and\thaving\tbeen
\ninjured\t at  that time.\t According to Bachan Singh,  he\t had
\nreceived  an injury during the course of a dispute with\t his
\nfather.\t Piaro, sister of Bachan Singh, was also examined as
\nDW  4. She too has denied that Bachan Singh was\t present  at
\nthe time of the present occurrence.  It is, in our  opinion,
\nnot  necessary\tto dilate upon the injury  of  Bachan  Singh
\nbecause\t even  if it may be assumed that  Bachan  Singh\t too
\nreceived  an  injury  during  the  course  of  the   present
\noccurrence, that
\n337<\/span>
\nwould not materially affect the substance of the prosecution
\nevidence   regarding  the  guilt  of  the   three   accused-
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  judges  of the High  Court  in  rejecting\t the
\nprosecution  evidence have made observations critical  about
\nthe   magistrate,  who\treceived  the  copy  of\t the   first
\ninformation  report,  as  well as  about  Dr.  Dhillon,\t Sub
\nInspector  Kehar Singh and. the learned Sessions Judge.\t  So
\nfar as the magistrate is concerned, it observed that he\t was
\nan  irresponsible  lazy officer as he could  not  reach\t the
\nhospital at about 1 a.m. on the night of occurrence in spite
\nof  heavy  rain\t for recording\tthe  dying  declarations  of
\nJoginder  Singh and Lakha Singh.  As, regards  Dr.  Dhillon,
\nthe  criticism\tleveled is that he expressed an\t opinion  in
\nanswer\tto the query of the investigating officer  that\t the
\ninjury\ton the nose of Harding Singh could be caused with  a
\nkirpan.\t It was observed that the doctor had gone out of the
\nway  to\t please the investigating officer.  The\t doctor\t was
\nalso  criticized  for  attesting  the  dying   declarations.
\nRegarding  Sub Inspector Kehar Singh, the High Court  formed
\nthe  impression\t that he was a\tdomineering  police  officer
\nbecause\t lie obtained opinion favorable to  the\t prosecution
\nfrom  Dr.  Dhillon.   It  was also  observed  that  the\t Sub
\nInspector  had\ttried to be over clever.  There\t was  enough
\nmaterial available, according to the High Court, which could
\nhave  been made better use of by a more imaginative  officer
\nwithout\t artificially  or artfully advancing the  time\tof
\noccurrence  to\tday time.  As regards the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge,\tthe  High Court observed that the  present  marathon
\ntrial  appeared\t to  have strained  his\t capacities  to\t the
\nmaximum\t limits.   The criticism leveled by the\t High  Court
\nagainst\t the above mentioned officers, in our  opinion,\t was
\nnot warranted and was couched in language, which was  rather
\nharsh.\n<\/p>\n
Perusal\t of  the judgment of the High Court  shows  that  in
\nacquitting   the   accused-respondents,\t  the\tHigh   Court
\napproached  the\t entire matter in a spirit of  distrust\t and
\nsuspicion of the various officers who dealt with this  case.
\nWe further find that the judgment of the High Court is based
\nupon conjectures, surmises and suspicion.  Looked at in\t the
\ncontext\t of  the facts of the case, we find  that  the\tview
\ntaken  by the High Court is manifestly unreasonable.  It  is
\nconsequently  not  possible to sustain the judgment  of\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
A  criminal  trial is not like a fairy tale wherein  one  in
\nfree  to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasm.\t  It
\nconcerns itself with the question as to whether the  accused
\narraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which  he
\nis  charged.   Crime  is an event in real life\tand  is\t the
\nproduct of interplay of different human emotions.  In arriv-
\ning at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
\nwith  the commission of a crime, the court has to judge\t the
\nevidence  by the yardstick of probabilities,  its  intrinsic
\nworth and the animus of witnesses.  Every case in the  final
\nanalysis would have to depend upon’ its own facts.  Although
\nthe benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the
\naccused,  the  courts  should not at the  same\ttime  reject
\nevidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which\t are
\nfanciful or in the nature of conjectures.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court in the present case, in our-  opinion,\t has
\nrejected  the prosecution evidence which was ex facie  of  a
\nconvincing nature
\n338<\/span>
\non  grounds which partake of the nature of  conjectures\t and
\nsurmises.   The\t view taken by the High\t Court,\t as  already
\nobserved,  is  manifestly unreasonable and has\tresulted  in
\nmiscarriage  of justice.  We accordingly accept the  appeal,
\nset  aside  the judgment of the High Court and\tconvict\t the
\naccused-respondents  for  the offences for which  they\twere
\nconvicted  by the trial court.\tAs regards the sentence\t for
\nthe  offence  under section 302<\/a> Indian Penal Code,  we\tfind
\nthat a period of more than two years has elapsed since\tthe
\nacquittal of the accused-respondents by the High Court.\t  It
\nwould,\tin the circumstances, be appropriate if the  extreme
\npenalty for the offence under section 302<\/a> Indian Penal\tCode
\nis not exacted from the accused-respondents.  We, therefore,
\n:sentence-  the\t accused-respondents for the  offence  under
\nsection 302<\/a> Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life.\t The
\nsentences  imposed  upon  the  accused-respondents  for\t the
\noffences under section 302<\/a> read with section 34<\/a>, section 307<\/a>
\nand  section 307<\/a> read with section 34<\/a> Indian Penal Code\t are
\nmaintained.    The  sentences  of  each\t of   the   accused-
\nrespondents would run concurrently,
\nV.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
339<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2407, 1974 SCR (1) 328 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGIR SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/08\/1973 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ ALAGIRISWAMI, […]<\/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-265899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-24T21:19:45+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T21:19:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\"},\"wordCount\":5375,\"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\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T21:19:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-24T21:19:45+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973","datePublished":"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T21:19:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973"},"wordCount":5375,"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\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973","name":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T21:19:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-jagir-singh-and-ors-on-6-august-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Jagir Singh And Ors on 6 August, 1973"}]},{"@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\/265899","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=265899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}