{"id":271600,"date":"2003-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003"},"modified":"2018-12-25T12:39:26","modified_gmt":"2018-12-25T07:09:26","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1646 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGHANSHYAM SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2003 Supp(3) SCR 618<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :\n<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal appeal No. 1646 of
\n1996 has questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by Division Bench
\nof Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, holding that respodent
\n(Ghanshyam Singh) was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304<\/a> of
\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC<\/a>‘). The sentence imposed was
\nrestricted to the period already undergone, which was about 2 years and
\nfine of Rs. 15,000 which, if deposited, was directed to be paid as
\ncompensation to the widow of Sarnam Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\ndeceased’) and in her absence to other dependents and heirs of the
\ndeceased. In default of payment of amount of fine, the default stipulation
\nwas further imprisonment of two years.\n<\/p>\n
Six persons including accused Ghanshyam faced trial for allegedly having
\ncommitted offences punishable under Sections 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC,
\nSection 148<\/a> IPC, Section 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC. While the
\nrespondent-Ghanshyam Singh was found guilty of offence punishable udner
\nSections 302<\/a>, and 307<\/a> read with Sections 148<\/a> and 149<\/a>, other accused persons
\nwere convicted under Section 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC. They were also
\nconvicted under Sections 148<\/a> and 307<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> IPC. Various
\nsentences were imposed. All the six accused persons filed appeals before
\nthe High Court. As accused no. 6 Diwan Singh expired during the pendency of
\nthe appeal, it was held that the same stood abated so far as he is
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
On 8.4.1981 Devi Singh (PW-1) with his sister Sushilabai (PW-3), his
\nsister’s husband and elder brother Maharaj Singh went to bus stand of
\nvillage Barod to see off Sushilabai and her husband, who were going by bus.
\nAt that time, all the six accused reached there with different weapons in
\ntheir hands. Accused Ghanshyam Singh had a gun; Sitaram had a farsa and
\nHarnam Singh and Diwan Singh had lathis. They all surrounded Devi Singh
\n(PW-1) and jointly assaulted him. Sitaram gave a farsa blow on the backside
\nof his head. Amar Singh gave a lathi blow on his head which, however, fell
\non the hand. When he raised a cry for help, Ghanshyam Singh then fiired at
\nhim but the bullet missed. Hearing the alarm, Hanumant Singh (PW-4), father
\nof Devi Singh, deceased Sarnam Singh who was his uncle, and Jaswant Singh
\n(PW-5) came on the spot. Accused Ghanshyam Singh then fired at Jaswant
\nSingh and he received injury on the arm. He fired two shots thereafter
\nwhich hit Sarnam Singh on his leg and abdomen. Harbir Singh gave a farsa
\nblow on leg of Hanumant Singh (PW-4). Udham Singh (PW-12), Jagannath and
\nBanjara were at that time at motor-stand and they tried to save the
\nassault. Information was lodged at the police station. Injured persons were
\nsent for medical treatment. Subsequently, Sarnam Singh breathed his last.
\nOn completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused persons
\npleaded innocence and false implication due to strained relationship. They
\nclaimed to have been assaulted by deceased and his companions. The trial
\nCourt convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated supra. Accused
\npersons challenged the conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the High Court
\ncame to hold that the eye witnesses have given cogent and consistent
\nversion that two shots were fired by Ghanshyam Singh causing serious
\ninjuries to Sarnam Singh. It was noted that there were two parts of the
\nincident. In the first part it was noted that when Devi Singh ran away from
\nthe bus stand to save himself and raised an alarm, accused-Ghanshyam Singh
\ncame on the spot with his gun and fired. In the second part, there was free
\nfight between the parties. In this view the plea of self-defence by the
\naccused was rejected. It was however held that the act of using fire-arm
\nand firing two shot by Ghanshyam Singh would fall under Exception 4 of
\nSection 300<\/a> IPC. As the act was done in the course of sudden and free fight
\nthe offence was not relatable to Section 302<\/a> IPC but was one under Section
\n304<\/a> Part-I IPC. He was acquitted of other charges. So far as other accused
\npersons are considered, they were held guilty of offence punishable under
\nSection 323<\/a> IPC. On the question of sentence, it was held that Ghanshyam
\nSingh was liable to undergo sentence and fine as noted supra. The special
\nleave petitions, so far as rest of the accused-respondents are concerned,
\nhave been dismissed by order dated 6.9.1996.\n<\/p>\n
It needs to be noted that though the High Court had held that the appeal
\nagainst Diwan Singh had abated, yet he was made a party in the special
\nleave petition. But that is really of no consequence as the special leave
\npetition has been dismissed so far as he and other accused 2 to 5 are
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the High Court was not
\njustified in holding that case under Section 302<\/a> IPC was not made out. In
\nany event, after having held that the case of homicide not amounting to
\nmurder has been made out against Ghanshyam Singh for offence punishable
\nunder Section 304<\/a> Part-I IPC, the custodial sentence of two years is too
\nmeager, considering the gravity of the offences and the brutal manner of
\nattacks. He referred to the factual background and findings to substantiate
\nboth the above pleas.\n<\/p>\n
In response learned counsel for the respondent – Ghanshyam Singh submitted
\nthat the High Court had rightly held that the offence was punishable under
\nSection 304<\/a> Part-1, IPC<\/a>. In view of the fact that the occurrence took place
\nin 1981, the sentence awarded is just and proper. In any event, after two
\ndecades it would be unreasonable and inequitable to send the accused back
\nto custody, particularly when the fine amount has been deposited. Reference
\nwas made to State of Punjab v. Bira Singh and Ors<\/a>., [1995] Supp 3 SCC 708;
\nPashora Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab<\/a>, [1993] Supp 2 SCC 33, Dilbagh
\nSingh v. State of Punjab<\/a>, [1979] 2 SCC 103 to contend that liberal view is
\ndesirable in such matters.\n<\/p>\n
We have considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
So far as conclusion of the High Court about the applicability of Section
\n304 Part-I, IPC<\/a> is concerned, the High Court has rightly held on the
\nevidence on record that the offence committed by accused-Ghanshyam Singh is
\nrelatable to Section 304 Part-I and not Section 302<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
The crucial question which needs to be decided is the proper sentence and
\nmerely because of lapse of time, the accused is to be waived from
\nundergoing it. It is to be noted that the sentences prescribed for offences
\nrelatable to Section 304 Part-I are imprisonment for life or up to a period
\nof 10 years. It is true that no minimum sentence has been prescribed. The
\nsentences can be compared with prescription of similar sentences and other
\nprovisions like Section 326<\/a> IPC and Section 307<\/a> IPC when hurt is caused.
\nSection 304 Part-I is a species of homicidal death. It is statutorily
\ndescribed as culpable homicide though not amounting to murder as defined
\nunder the IPC<\/a>. Taking note of the purpose for which a sentence is imposed,
\nit cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that long passage
\nof time in all cases would justify minimal sentence. Long pendency of a
\nmatter by itself could not justify lesser sentence.\n<\/p>\n
The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and
\ndamands. Security of persons and peoperty of the people is an essential
\nfunction of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of
\ncriminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living
\nlaw must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to
\nmould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of
\nlawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of
\nsociety and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law
\nwhich must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as
\na corner-stone of the edifice of “order” should meet the challenges
\nconfronting the society. Friedman in his “Law in Changing Society” stated
\nthat, “State of criminal law continues to be – as it should be – a decisive
\nreflection of social consciousness of society”. Therefore, in operating the
\nsentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the
\ndeterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process
\nbe stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to
\nbe. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the
\ncrime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for
\ncommission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons
\nused and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would
\nenter into the areas of consideration. For instance a murder committed due
\nto deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of
\ndeath. But an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call
\nfor imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v. State of M.P<\/a>.,
\n[1987] 2 SCR 710, this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentence
\nobserved thus :\n<\/p>\n
“It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the
\nextreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts.
\nTo give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the
\njusticing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in
\nCourts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of
\ndeterrence more than the reformative jargon.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm
\nto the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of
\nlaw and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is,
\ntherefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard
\nto the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or
\ncommitted etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in
\nSevaka Perumal Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1991) SC 1463.\n<\/p>\n
The criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in
\nprescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal
\nconduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in
\narriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that
\nreflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the
\nspecial facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought
\nalways to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely
\nby other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the
\nperpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the
\ndesirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the
\ntragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a
\ndeparture from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of
\napparent injustice that are serious and widespread.\n<\/p>\n
Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle,
\nand in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the
\ndetermination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes
\nwith equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a
\nradical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared
\nfrom the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction
\ndrastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest
\nseverity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of
\ntoleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from
\nthose considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of
\nproportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some
\nvery undesirable practical consequences.\n<\/p>\n
After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case,
\nfor deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence,
\nthe aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime
\nhas been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really
\nrelevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of
\nbalancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in
\nDennis Councle MCGDautha v. State of Callifornia : 402 US 183 : 28 L.D.
\n2711 that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a
\nreasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in
\nthe infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the
\ncrime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis
\nfor reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane
\nto the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the
\nfacts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably
\ndistinguished.\n<\/p>\n
In Jashubha Bharat Singh Gohil v. State of Gujarat<\/a>, [1994] 4 SCC 353, it
\nhas been held by this Court that in the matter of death sentence, the
\nCourts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing
\nsystem to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the
\nsociety and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by
\nimposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate
\nthe sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the
\nconscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where
\nit should be. Even though the principles were indicated in the background
\nof death sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where
\nappropriate sentence is the issue.\n<\/p>\n
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order
\nin many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the
\ncirme, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity,
\nkidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences
\ninvolving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on
\nsocial order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se
\nrequire exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager
\nsentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time
\nin respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the
\nlong run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and
\nstrengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.\n<\/p>\n
In Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B<\/a>., [1994] 2 SCC 220, this Court has
\nobserved that shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby
\nincreasingly, encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making justice
\nsuffer by weakening the system’s creditability. The imposition of
\nappropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the
\nsociety’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that Courts
\nshould impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect
\npublic abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the
\nrights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and
\nthe society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
\npunishment. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of
\nRajasthan<\/a>, [1996] 2 SCC 175. It has been held in the said case that it is
\nthe nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane
\nfor consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court
\nwill be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a
\ncrime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but
\nalso against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The
\npunishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should
\nconform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the
\ncrime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public
\nabhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry for justice against
\nthe criminal”. If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a
\nvery brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is
\nnot given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.\n<\/p>\n
Taking into account the all relevant aspects of this case in the background
\nof principles governing award of appropriate sentence, we feel that even on
\na liberal approach, custodial sentence of 6 years would serve the ends of
\njustice. While fixing the sentence we have taken note of the fine imposed
\nwhich remains unaltered. It is said to have been paid. There was
\nstipulation for 2 years RI in case of default. The respondent, who is on
\nbail, shall surrender to custody to serve balance of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No. 1646 of 1996 is allowed to the extent indicated. In
\nview of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1646 of 1996, there is no
\nnecessity for passing any order in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
\n489\/1996 filed by the informant for enhancement of sentence and the same is
\nrejected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1646 of 1996 PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT: GHANSHYAM SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(3) SCR 618 The Judgment of the […]<\/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-271600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - 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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2802,\"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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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 Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - 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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003"},"wordCount":2802,"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-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-25T07:09:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-ghanshyam-singh-on-11-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/271600","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=271600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}