{"id":32543,"date":"2002-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-08T19:04:24","modified_gmt":"2018-09-08T13:34:24","slug":"devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.B. Shah<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 993  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDEVENDER PAL SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t22\/03\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. Shah\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy judgment and order dated 24\/25.8.2001, in Sessions Case<br \/>\nNo.4 of 2000, the Designated Court-I, New Delhi convicted the<br \/>\nappellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of Terrorist<br \/>\nand Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as the &#8216;TADA&#8217;) and Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307,<br \/>\n326, 324, 323, 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced<br \/>\nhim to death and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/-.  He was also<br \/>\nsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the<br \/>\noffence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of TADA and to pay a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.10,000\/-.\t Against that judgment and order, the appellant has<br \/>\nfiled Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2001 and for confirmation of death<br \/>\nsentence, the State has filed Death Reference Case (Crl.) No.2 of 2001<br \/>\nbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is the prosecution version that on 11.09.1993 Mr. M.S. Bitta,<br \/>\nthe then President of Indian Youth Congress (I) was in his office at 5,<br \/>\nRaisina Road, New Delhi.  At about 2.30 p.m., Mr. Bitta left the office<br \/>\nand the car in which he was travelling came out of the main gate of 5,<br \/>\nRaisina Road and one pilot car, in which security personnel provided<br \/>\nto him were sitting, was ahead of his car.  The pilot car slowed down<br \/>\nin order to take right turn on Raisina Road.  In the meantime, one bus<br \/>\ncame on Raisina Road, from the side of Windsor Palace.\tAt that time,<br \/>\nthere was an explosion in a car parked outside 5, Raisina Road.<br \/>\nThough, Mr. Bitta was not hurt badly, a number of other vehicles<br \/>\nparked on the road and footpath caught fire.  Because of the bomb<br \/>\nblast nine persons succumbed to the injuries and 29 other persons<br \/>\nsustained injuries.  During the course of investigation, it was learnt<br \/>\nthat Kuldeep, Sukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal Singh and Daya<br \/>\nSingh Lahoria, all members of KLF, a terrorist organisation, were<br \/>\nbehind this blast and their aim was to assassinate Mr. Bitta.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is the further prosecution version that secret information was<br \/>\nreceived that appellant Devender Pal Singh who was in custody of<br \/>\nGerman authorities was to come to Delhi from Frankfurt on the night<br \/>\nof 18\/19.1.1995.  On his arrival, he was handed over to IGI Airport<br \/>\npolice authorities by Lufthansa Airlines Staff.\t Immediately upon his<br \/>\narrest, he tried to swallow cyanide capsule.  However, he was<br \/>\nprevented.\n<\/p>\n<p>Other accused Daya Singh Lahoria, who was extradited from<br \/>\nUSA to India was also arrested.\t He was also tried along with the<br \/>\nappellant but was acquitted by the Designated Court on the ground<br \/>\nthat there was no evidence against him and that he has not made any<br \/>\nconfessional statement. The Court also observed that there was no iota<br \/>\nof material on record to corroborate confessional statement made by<br \/>\naccused Devender Pal Singh against his co-accused Daya Singh<br \/>\nLahoria and prudence requires that in absence of corroboration,<br \/>\nbenefit should go to Daya Singh Lahoria.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<br \/>\nexcept the so called confessional statement, there is no other evidence<br \/>\nagainst the appellant and the said confessional statement is neither<br \/>\nvoluntary nor true and in any case there is no corroborative evidence.<br \/>\nHence, the judgment and order passed by the Designated Court<br \/>\nconvicting the appellant requires to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant, the relevant evidence led by the prosecution is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered.  It is the say of PW37 Inspector Severaia<br \/>\nKujur that on 19.1.1995 he was posted at Immigration Airport and at<br \/>\nthe time of clearance of flight LH-760 at about 2.30 a.m., the staff of<br \/>\nLH flight handed over Devender Pal Singh who was deported from<br \/>\nGermany.  He was interrogated by PRO Vigilance and SB Branch and<br \/>\nit was found that he was having forged passport, so he made a rukka<br \/>\nunder Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport<br \/>\nAct. Further, PW83 Inspector Tej Singh Verma, Operation Cell,<br \/>\nLodhi Colony, New Delhi, has also stated that on 19.1.1995 he was<br \/>\nposted at IGI Airport as Sub Inspector and that accused Devender Pal<br \/>\nwho was deported from Germany was arrested in case FIR No.22 of<br \/>\n1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and<br \/>\n471 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act.  During the course<br \/>\nof interrogation, in the said case, he made a disclosure statement.  He<br \/>\nhas also stated that personal search was conducted and that travelling<br \/>\ndocuments were recovered from the accused.  Along with the<br \/>\ndisclosure statement and personal search memo, he was handed over<br \/>\nto ACP K.S. Bedi who conducted the investigation of this case.\tIn<br \/>\ncross-examination, he has denied that Devender Pal Singh had not<br \/>\nmade any disclosure statement and that his signatures were obtained<br \/>\non blank sheets.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNow, as against this, we have to consider the evidence of<br \/>\nPW130 Mr. K.S. Bedi, ACP.  It is his say that on the relevant date he<br \/>\nwas posted in Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony. He received information<br \/>\nthat an KLF extremist namely Davenderpal Singh @ Deepak has been<br \/>\ndetained in Germany in the last week of December, 1994, he was<br \/>\ntrying to get released from there and that he would proceed to<br \/>\nPakistan or he may be deported to India.  He along with other officers<br \/>\nwent to IGI Airport to check the incoming passengers from Frankfurt,<br \/>\nGermany.  At 2.30 a.m., Lufthansa Airlines Staff handed over the<br \/>\naccused who was having forged travelling documents to PW 37.  He<br \/>\ntried to swallow a capsule in plastic foil which was caught and after<br \/>\nthis he disclosed that his name was Devender Pal Singh.\t On that<br \/>\nbasis, IGI airport staff registered a case vide FIR No.22 dated<br \/>\n19.1.1995.  It is his further say that on that date he made disclosure<br \/>\nstatement describing his involvement in many cases including a bomb<br \/>\nblast at 5, Raisina Road.  Therefore, he collected the copy of the<br \/>\ndisclosure statement Ex.PW83\/A and made his formal arrest in the<br \/>\npresent case. He produced the accused before Shri B.B. Chaudhary,<br \/>\nACMM, New Delhi and secured his police remand for 10-days.  He<br \/>\nwas interrogated on 21.1.1995 and accused again made a disclosure<br \/>\nstatement in which he admitted his involvement in the bomb blast at<br \/>\nRaisina Road.  On 22.1.1995, he gave in writing that he wanted to<br \/>\nmake confession.  Thereafter, he informed Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP<br \/>\n(PW121) for recording the confessional statement.  Mr. Bola after<br \/>\nfollowing the procedure recorded his confessional statement on 23rd<br \/>\nJanuary, 1995.\tOn 24th January, 1995, he was produced before the<br \/>\nCourt of ACMM, New Delhi before the expiry of police custody<br \/>\nremand and from there the accused was taken by the Punjab Police.<br \/>\nIn cross-examination, Mr. Bedi has stated that he was not having any<br \/>\nprior information that accused was being deported from Germany to<br \/>\nIndia but he had gone to IGI Airport for checking the passengers<br \/>\ncoming from Germany in the expectation that the accused might have<br \/>\nbeen deported.\tHe also admitted that in pursuance of the disclosure<br \/>\nstatement Ex.PW83\/1, no article was recovered from the accused or at<br \/>\nhis pointing out.  He further stated that there is no recovery memo<br \/>\npertaining to the car recovered from Bulandshahar on the judicial file.<br \/>\nHowever, there is a reference about the car in a photocopy of DD<br \/>\nNo.69 dated 30.10.1993 of PS Bulandshahar.  This DD was not<br \/>\nbrought by him.\t He denied the suggestion that the involvement of the<br \/>\naccused persons was within the knowledge of police prior to<br \/>\n19.1.1995.  He also admitted that on 23.1.1995, the DCP used the<br \/>\ncomputer installed in his office for recording the statement of the<br \/>\naccused.  He also admitted that he had given a wireless message<br \/>\ninforming the Punjab Police that accused would be produced before<br \/>\nthe court on 24.1.1995 and that is how the Punjab Police had sought<br \/>\nhis police remand.  He has denied the suggestion that accused was<br \/>\nforced to make a false confessional statement before the DCP and the<br \/>\naccused was deliberately produced prior to the expiry of police<br \/>\nremand and was sent to Punjab.\tHe admits that thereafter accused<br \/>\nremained in police custody for more than two months in Punjab.\tIn<br \/>\nfurther cross-examination, he has stated that he had not produced the<br \/>\ncopy of the confessional statement or the original before the learned<br \/>\nACMM when the accused was produced before him.\tHe also<br \/>\nadmitted that before the accused was produced before ACMM on<br \/>\n24.1.1995, he was formally arrested by the police of Police Station<br \/>\nSriniwaspuri.  He also admitted that Investigating Officers of the case<br \/>\npertaining to P.S. Sriniwaspuri and Punjab Police were present inside<br \/>\nthe court when the accused was produced before the ACMM.  He has<br \/>\ndenied the suggestion that accused was put under fear and duress or<br \/>\nthat he was warned not to reveal the true circumstances under which<br \/>\nthe confessional statement was recorded or that in case he so reveals,<br \/>\nhe would be done to death by Punjab Police.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPW121 Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP recorded the confessional<br \/>\nstatement of accused.  In the cross-examination, he has admitted that<br \/>\nhe was aware about the entire facts of the case prior to the recording<br \/>\nof the statement of the accused under Section 15 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe prosecution also led the evidence of PW131 ASI Kamlesh<br \/>\nwho recorded the confessional statement on the computer as per the<br \/>\ndictation of accused which is running into nine pages.\tShe has<br \/>\nadmitted in cross-examination that during the period of six hours<br \/>\nwhen his statement was recorded accused was not provided any water<br \/>\nor snacks and the matter typed out on the computer was not saved nor<br \/>\nit was taken on a floppy.\n<\/p>\n<p>The prosecution has also examined PW133 Mr B.B.<br \/>\nChaudhary, ASJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi, who was ACMM, New Delhi at<br \/>\nthe relevant time stated that accused was produced before him when<br \/>\nhe was in police custody.  He asked only one question to the<br \/>\naccusedwhether his statement was recorded by DCP on 23.1.1995?<br \/>\nTo that, accused answered in affirmative and his signatures were<br \/>\nobtained on the application in confirmation of his admission of having<br \/>\nmade a statement before the DCP.  He admitted that he had not asked<br \/>\nany other question.  It is his say that he did not think it necessary to<br \/>\ntake the accused to his chamber to assess his mental state. He also<br \/>\nadmitted that at that time no statement of accused was produced<br \/>\nbefore him.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, questions<br \/>\nthat arise for consideration are  (i) whether the confessional<br \/>\nstatement is true and voluntary? and  (ii) whether there is any<br \/>\ncorroboration to the said statement?\n<\/p>\n<p>Before considering the evidence led by the prosecution, it is to<br \/>\nbe stated that accused in his statement recorded under Section 313<br \/>\nCr.P.C. stated that he had sought asylum in Germany and was<br \/>\ndeported from there on refusal of asylum.  He has denied recovery of<br \/>\ncyanide capsule from him.  He has also denied having made the<br \/>\napplication Ex.PW121\/B expressing desire to make a confessional<br \/>\nstatement.  He has also denied having made the confessional<br \/>\nstatement before Mr. Bola on 23.1.1995.\t According to him, he was<br \/>\nmade to sign some blank and partly written papers under threat and<br \/>\nduress and entire proceedings were fabricated upon those documents.<br \/>\nHe has also stated that before he was produced before the ACMM, he<br \/>\nwas told that if he made any statement to the Court he would be<br \/>\nhanded over to Punjab Police who would kill him in an encounter, and<br \/>\nas he was under fear, he made a statement before learned ACMM.\tHe<br \/>\nhas also stated that he was taken to Punjab and brought back after<br \/>\nabout three months and thereafter he sent an application from jail on<br \/>\n21.4.1995 retracting his confessional statement and clarifying the<br \/>\ncircumstances under which the said statement was recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is apparent that Investigating Officer Mr. K.S. Bedi has<br \/>\nimproved his version by stating that accused tried to swallow cyanide<br \/>\ncapsule when he was arrested.  As against this, it is the say of PW37<br \/>\nSeveraia Kujur and PW83 Inspector Tej Singh that accused was<br \/>\nhanded over to them by the staff of Lufthansa Airlines and nowhere<br \/>\nthey stated that at that time accused tried to swallow any pill.  It<br \/>\nappears that Mr. K.S. Bedi tried to give colour to the story that<br \/>\nappellant tried to swallow the cyanide pill.  If that story was genuine,<br \/>\nnecessary panchnama of the cyanide pill would have been made at the<br \/>\nspot.\tFurther, it is admitted position on record that during the course<br \/>\nof investigation of the bomb blast, the police had learnt that Kuldeep,<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal Singh and Daya Singh Lahoria,<br \/>\nwho were members of KLF, a terrorist organisation, were behind the<br \/>\nblast.\tTherefore, it would be difficult to believe that the IO Mr. Bedi<br \/>\nhad gone to the Airport only for keeping a watch.  On the contrary,<br \/>\nMr. Bola has admitted that on his instructions, ACP KS Bedi had gone<br \/>\nto the Airport to arrest the accused on the basis of intelligence reports<br \/>\nof involvement of accused and his group in the bomb blast case.<br \/>\nTherefore, the version of Mr. Bedi that he had gone at the IGI Airport<br \/>\nto check the incoming passengers from Frankfurt Germany cannot be<br \/>\nrelied upon.  From the evidence of DCP Mr. Bola it is apparent that<br \/>\ninformation was received that accused was coming from Germany<br \/>\nand, therefore, a watch at IGI Airport was kept.\n<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the aforesaid improvement, it is difficult to believe<br \/>\nthat the accused who was arrested for travelling on a forged passport<br \/>\nafter landing at the airport, would make a disclosure statement<br \/>\ninvolving himself in various crimes including the bomb blast.  There<br \/>\nwas no earthly reason to make such disclosure on 19th itself so that<br \/>\naccused could be arrested by Mr. K.S. Bedi for the alleged<br \/>\ninvolvement in the offence under the TADA.  It is also admitted that<br \/>\nwhen the accused was produced before ACMM, the confessional<br \/>\nstatement was not produced for the perusal of the ACMM and the<br \/>\nACMM only asked him the questionwhether he admits making<br \/>\nconfessional statement before DCP B.S. Bola.  It would be difficult to<br \/>\naccept that if confessional statement was recorded and when the<br \/>\naccused was produced before the Magistrate, he would be taken there<br \/>\nwithout the said confessional statement.  Rule 15(5) of TADA<br \/>\nrequires that every confession recorded under Section 15 shall be sent<br \/>\nforthwith to the CMM or the CJM having jurisdiction over the area in<br \/>\nwhich such confession has been recorded and such Magistrate shall<br \/>\nforward the confession so received to the Designated Court which<br \/>\nmay take cognizance of the offence.  In this view of the matter, there<br \/>\nwas no reason to produce the accused before the ACMM without so-<br \/>\ncalled confessional statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further sub-section (1) of Section 15 of TADA specifically<br \/>\nprovides inter alia that in case confession made by a person before the<br \/>\npolice officer is recorded by such  police officer either in writing or on<br \/>\nany mechanical device like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from out<br \/>\nof which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in<br \/>\ntrial of such person for an offence under this Act or rules made<br \/>\nthereunder.  The confessional statement was recorded on computer<br \/>\nand floppy thereof is not produced in the court and is admitted to have<br \/>\nnot been saved in the computer by ASI Kamlesh.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that the confessional<br \/>\nstatement of the appellant is recorded by DCP B.S. Bola (PW121)<br \/>\nwho was the Investigating Officer at the relevant time.\t Admittedly,<br \/>\nthe accused was in police custody.  Thereafter he was handed over to<br \/>\nthe Punjab Police.  Further, from the record it appears that accused<br \/>\nwas wanted in bomb blast case since 1993 and as soon as he arrived at<br \/>\nthe IGI Airport, he was arrested and was handed over to PW130 Mr.<br \/>\nK.S. Bedi, ACP.\t It is stated that Mr. Bedi also recorded the disclosure<br \/>\nstatement of the appellant on 21.1.1995, wherein he admitted his<br \/>\ninvolvement in the bomb blast case.  Thereafter, confessional<br \/>\nstatement under Section 15 of the TADA was recorded by DCP B.S.<br \/>\nBola. In such state of affairs, doubt may arisewhether the accused<br \/>\nhas made any confessional statement at all. In Kartar Singh v. State<br \/>\nof Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569], this Court observed thus: &#8211;<br \/>\n&#8220;Though it is entirely for the court trying the<br \/>\noffence to decide the question of admissibility or<br \/>\nreliability of a confession in\tits judicial wisdom strictly<br \/>\nadhering to the law, it must, while so deciding the<br \/>\nquestion should satisfy itself that there was no trap, no<br \/>\ntrack and no importune seeking of evidence during the<br \/>\ncustodial interrogation and all the conditions required are<br \/>\nfulfilled.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In such case it would be unsafe to solely rely upon the alleged<br \/>\nconfession recorded by Investigating Officer.  Further, looking at the<br \/>\noriginal confessional statement, there appears to be some substance in<br \/>\nwhat is contended by the accused in his statement under Section 313<br \/>\nCr.P.C. that his signatures were taken on blank paper.\tUnder Rule<br \/>\n15(3)(b) of the TADA Rules, the police officer who is recording the<br \/>\nconfession has to certify the same &#8220;under his own hand&#8221; that the said<br \/>\nconfession was taken in his presence and recorded by him and at the<br \/>\nend of confession, he has to give certificate as provided thereunder.<br \/>\nIn the present case, the certificate was not given under the hands of<br \/>\nD.C.P., but was a typed one.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, for finding out  whether the statement is truthful or<br \/>\nnot,  there must be some reliable independent corroborative<br \/>\nevidence.  In the present case, co-accused Daya Singh Lahoria who<br \/>\nwas tried together with the appellant was acquitted on the ground that<br \/>\nthere was no evidence against him and that as he had not made any<br \/>\nconfessional statement.\t However, for connecting the appellant, the<br \/>\nlearned Judge has relied upon the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/793296\/\">Gurdeep Singh vs. State<br \/>\n(Delhi Admn.),<\/a> [(2000) 1 SCC 498] for holding that when the<br \/>\nconfessional statement is voluntary, corroboration is not required.  It<br \/>\nappears that the Court has not read the entire paragraph of the said<br \/>\njudgment and has missed the previous lines which read thus: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;For the aforesaid reasons and on the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold<br \/>\nthat the confessional statement of the appellant is not<br \/>\nonly admissible but was voluntarily and truthfully made<br \/>\nby him on which the prosecution could rely for his<br \/>\nconviction.  Such confessional statement does not require<br \/>\nany further corroboration.  Before reliance could be<br \/>\nplaced on such confessional statement, even though<br \/>\nvoluntarily made, it has to be seen by the court whether it<br \/>\nis truthfully made or not.  However, in the present case<br \/>\nwe are not called upon nor is it challenged that the<br \/>\nconfessional statement was not made truthfully.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that before solely<br \/>\nrelying upon the confessional statement, the Court has to find out<br \/>\nwhether it is made voluntarily and truthfully by the accused.  Even if<br \/>\nit is made voluntarily, the Court has to decide whether it is made<br \/>\ntruthfully or not.  But in Gurdeep Singh&#8217;s case (supra), there was no<br \/>\nchallenge made to the fact that it was not made truthfully.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the confessional statement it is mentioned that accused hired<br \/>\nrooms at Sahibabad, Jaipur and Bangalore.\tMerely because some<br \/>\nhouse numbers are mentioned in confessional statement, it cannot be<br \/>\nheld that as house numbers are found by police officers, it is a<br \/>\ncorroborative piece of evidence.  None of the neighbours has deposed<br \/>\nbefore the court that the accused stayed in the said houses.  To write<br \/>\nsuch numbers is easy for investigating officers because they were<br \/>\ninvestigating the case from the date of the bomb blast i.e. since 1993.<br \/>\nNo independent witnesses or landlord came forward to depose that<br \/>\naccused resided in the said premises or took it on lease.  No<br \/>\nincriminating articles were found from the said house or places<br \/>\nmentioned in confession to connect the accused with the crime. Even<br \/>\nPW80 Harcharan Singh who sold the car which was seized at the<br \/>\nscene of offence in 1993, has not stated that appellant-accused<br \/>\npurchased the said car or that acquitted accused Daya Singh purchased<br \/>\nthe same.  PW44 Prehlad Sharma, property dealer of Sahibabad,<br \/>\nGhaziabad, stated that in August,1993 he had arranged a house on rent<br \/>\nbasis for two boys, who told themselves to be working as contractor in<br \/>\nG.D.A.\tHe, also, failed to identify accused as the boys who came at<br \/>\nhis shop to take the premises on rent.\tOn 28.9.1993, the police came<br \/>\nto him and informed that some RDX was recovered from that house,<br \/>\nshown some photographs to him and he identified two photographs of<br \/>\nthe said persons.  However, he has not identified the accused as the<br \/>\nboy who came at his shop to take the premises on rent.\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nPW69 Nasir Siddiqui, who was running a shop of electrical goods at<br \/>\nLajpat Nagar had sold one water pump to a customer residing in<br \/>\nLajpat Nagar.  The police came to his show-room and pointed some<br \/>\nphotographs for identification of the person who had purchased the<br \/>\nwater pump.  He had identified the photograph of that person.<br \/>\nHowever, in the court, he refused to identify the accused as the<br \/>\ncustomer who had purchased the water pump from his shop.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn any set of circumstances, let us consider the confessional<br \/>\nstatement as it is.  In the present case other accused D.S. Lahoria was<br \/>\ntried along with the appellant and was acquitted. The role assigned to<br \/>\nD.S. Lahoria in the confessional statement is major one.  In the<br \/>\nconfessional statement, appellant Devenderpal Singh has stated as<br \/>\nunder: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I was born in Jullandar on 26.5.65.I completed<br \/>\npre-engineering examination from Layal Pur Khalsa<br \/>\nCollege Jullandhar in 1984 and joined B.E. in the<br \/>\nMechanical at Guru Nanak Engineering College,<br \/>\nLudhiana and completed my degree course in<br \/>\n1988..In the month of Nov.,1991, police<br \/>\ncame to know about the names of the boys who were<br \/>\nbehind the car bomb attack on SSP\/Chandigarh and the<br \/>\npolice raided the house Partap Singh where Dr. Hari<br \/>\nSingh and Videshi had stayed one day before the blast.<br \/>\nPartap Singh further disclosed that they are also known to<br \/>\nme..The police raided my house.\t I was not present<br \/>\nin the house.  My father and father-in-law were arrested<br \/>\nby the policeI was told that he alongwith Partap<br \/>\nSingh, Balwant Singh Multani and Navneet Singh<br \/>\nKadian @ Pal R\/o village Kadia Distt. Batala and Mangal<br \/>\nSingh are wanted in SSP\/Chandigarh bomb blast case.<br \/>\nThereafter, I went under ground and talked to my<br \/>\nmaternal uncle Shri Sukhdev Singh Sandhu in<br \/>\nVencouver, Canada who advised me that the chances of<br \/>\nrelease of his father are very minimum as the case relates<br \/>\nto Sumed Singh Saini and that he should also go under<br \/>\nground.\n<\/p>\n<p>In August, 1993, plans were chalked out to<br \/>\neliminate M.S. Bitta because Keepa felt that he is<br \/>\nspeaking to much against their movement and the<br \/>\nmilitants.  Keepa along with Charni went to Punjab<br \/>\nand took out one quintal of RDX and left it with one<br \/>\nPawan Kumar @ Chajju at Ludhiana.  They came back<br \/>\nand sent Harnaik @ Chottu to bring this RDX to their<br \/>\nSahibabad hideout.  Part of this consignment was<br \/>\nbrought by Pawan Kumar which was handed over to<br \/>\nKuldeep Keepa at Delhi\tKarnal Border.\tHarnaik @<br \/>\nChotu got the steel container fabricated for the<br \/>\nbombs.\tDaya Singh Lahora went to purchase an<br \/>\nAmbassador Car which was subsequently used in the<br \/>\nbomb blast.  The cordless telephone was purchased<br \/>\nfrom Ludhiana by Harnaik.  On 2nd September, 1993,<br \/>\nKuldeep Keepa and Navneet Kadian conducted the<br \/>\nreccee of the office of MS Bitta at 5, Rai Sina Road,<br \/>\nNew Delhi. Next day, Kuldeep Keepa, Navneet, Sukha<br \/>\n@ Sangatpuria, Harnaik, Lahoria and myself again<br \/>\ncame to the office of Bitta to watch the proceedings.<br \/>\nWe made two attempts on 6th and 9th September, 1993.<br \/>\nOn 6th September, 1993, the mechanism did not work and<br \/>\nwe could not trigger the blast.\t On 9th September, 1993,<br \/>\nMS Bitta did not come to the office.  Myself and<br \/>\nKuldeep Keepa fixed the bombs in the rear seat and<br \/>\nthe dickey and the master receiver of the telephone<br \/>\nwas placed on the rear seat.  The two wires coming out<br \/>\nthe receiver were connected to the detonators.\tAround<br \/>\n40 kgs. of RDX was used in the blast.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 11.9.1993, we came to the office of Bitta at<br \/>\naround 11 a.m. and the car was parked close to the<br \/>\nfront gate.  Navneet, Keepa and Sangatpuria were<br \/>\nwaiting in the back side of parking of Meridian Hotel<br \/>\nalongwith Gypsy No.DNC-1790 which was a fake<br \/>\nnumber.\t I went to Connaught Place to bring Harnaik @<br \/>\nChotu with whom the time was fixed the previous day.<br \/>\nIn the meanwhile, MS Bitta went inside his office and<br \/>\nwe could not trigger off the blast as none of us were in<br \/>\nposition.  We decided to go back, but when we reached<br \/>\nPragati Maidan, Keepa insisted on making another try.<br \/>\nWe reached Janpath Hotel and connected the wires in the<br \/>\nparking area and sent Lahoria to park the car near the<br \/>\ngate of the office.  The other five of us went in the<br \/>\nGypsy and parked it in the parking area in front of<br \/>\nChelmsford club.  Harnaik and myself got down from<br \/>\nGypsy and went towards the office of MS Bitta.\tI<br \/>\npositioned myself on the opposite side of the office and<br \/>\nHarnaik positioned himself close to the walls of<br \/>\nJawahar Bhawan to save himself from the blast.\n<\/p>\n<p>When Lahoria came out of the car after parking<br \/>\nimmediately, thereafter, the cars of MS Bitta started<br \/>\nmoving out and Lahoria gave a signal to Harnaik who<br \/>\npushed the button of the hand set of the cordless<br \/>\ntelephone.  The security car of MS Bitta was hit and<br \/>\nBitta&#8217;s car which was behind was not damaged.  Since<br \/>\nLahoria was very closed, he was hit by splinters on his<br \/>\nback.\tHarnaik and myself went to the parked Gypsy<br \/>\nfrom where Sukha had already come towards 5 Rai Sina<br \/>\nRoad, New Delhi to see whether any of us had been<br \/>\ninjured or not.\t Kuldeep and Navneet were already sitting<br \/>\nin the Gypsy.  Four of us left the place and dropped<br \/>\nNavneet at the back of Meridian Hotel to come by bus or<br \/>\nautho-rickshaw because he was a Sikh and possibility of<br \/>\nidentification was more strong.\t Lahoria went to the<br \/>\nhospital in auto rickshaw and registered himself under<br \/>\nthe name of VK Sood and left the hospital immediately<br \/>\nafter first aid.  He went to his hideout which is not known<br \/>\nto me.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere is nothing on record to corroborate the aforesaid<br \/>\nconfessional statement.\t Police could have easily verified the hospital<br \/>\nrecord to find out whether D.S. Lahoria went to the hospital and<br \/>\nregistered himself under the name of V.K. Sood on the date of<br \/>\nincident and left the hospital after getting First Aid.\t In any set of<br \/>\ncircumstances, none of the main culprits i.e. Harnaik or Lahoria is<br \/>\nconvicted.  In these set of circumstances, without there being<br \/>\ncorroborative evidence, it would be difficult to solely rely upon the<br \/>\nso-called confessional statement and convict the accused and that too<br \/>\nwhen the confessional statement is recorded by the investigating<br \/>\nofficer.  For this purpose, it would be worth-while to refer to the<br \/>\ndecision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1209122\/\">Topandas v. State of Bombay<\/a> [AIR 1956 SC 33 para 6]: &#8211;<br \/>\n&#8220;Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120-A<br \/>\nPenal Code:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;When two or more persons agree to do or cause to<br \/>\nbe done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not<br \/>\nillegal by illegal means, such an agreement is<br \/>\ndesignated a criminal conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n<p>By the terms of the definition itself, there ought to be two<br \/>\nor more persons who must be parties to such an<br \/>\nagreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can<br \/>\nnever be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple<br \/>\nreason that one cannot conspire with oneself. If,<br \/>\ntherefore, 4 named individuals were charged with having<br \/>\ncommitted the offence under Section 120-B, Penal Code,<br \/>\nand if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge,<br \/>\nthe remaining accused, who was the accused No.1 in the<br \/>\ncase before us, could never be held guilty of the offence<br \/>\nof criminal conspiracy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe court further discussed the aforesaid question and referred<br \/>\nto the decision in R. v. Plummer [1902 (2) KB 339 (C)] and held as<br \/>\nunder: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(1902) 2 KB 339 (C) which is cited in support of<br \/>\nthis proposition was a case in which, on a trial of<br \/>\nindictment charging three persons jointly with conspiring<br \/>\ntogether, one person had pleaded guilty and a judgment<br \/>\npassed against him, and the other two were acquitted.  It<br \/>\nwas held that the judgment passed against one who had<br \/>\npleaded guilty was bad and could not stand.  Lord Justice<br \/>\nWright observed at p.343:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is much authority to the effect that, if<br \/>\nthe appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge<br \/>\nof conspiracy, and the trial of all three defendants<br \/>\ntogether had proceeded on that charge, and had<br \/>\nresulted in the conviction of the appellant and the<br \/>\nacquittal of the only alleged co-conspirators, no<br \/>\njudgment could have been passed on the appellant,<br \/>\nbecause the verdict must have been regarded as<br \/>\nrepugnant in finding that there was a criminal<br \/>\nagreement between the appellant and the others<br \/>\nand none between them and him: see &#8216;Harison v.\n<\/p>\n<p>Errington&#8217;, (1627) Poph 202 (D), where upon an<br \/>\nindictment of three for riot two were found not<br \/>\nguilty and one guilty, and upon error brought it<br \/>\nwas held a &#8220;void verdict&#8221;, and said to be &#8220;like to<br \/>\nthe case in 11 Hen 4 c.2, conspiracy against two,<br \/>\nand only one of them is found guilty, it is void, for<br \/>\none alone cannot conspire.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn this view of the matter, when rest of the accused who are<br \/>\nnamed in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried, this<br \/>\nwould not be a fit case for convicting the appellant solely on the basis<br \/>\nof so-called confessional statement recorded by the police officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFinally, such type of confessional statement as recorded by the<br \/>\ninvestigating officer cannot be the basis for awarding death sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2001 filed by the<br \/>\naccused is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by<br \/>\nthe Designated Court convicting the appellant is set aside.  The<br \/>\naccused is acquitted for the offences for which he is charged and he is<br \/>\ndirected to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, Death Reference Case (Crl.) No. 2 of<br \/>\n2001 would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(M.B. SHAH)<\/p>\n<p>March 22, 2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 Author: Shah Bench: M.B. Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 993 of 2001 PETITIONER: DEVENDER PAL SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: VS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/03\/2002 BENCH: M.B. Shah JUDGMENT: Shah, J. By judgment and order dated 24\/25.8.2001, in Sessions Case No.4 of 2000, the [&hellip;]<\/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-32543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-08T13:34:24+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T13:34:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5078,\"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\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T13:34:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-08T13:34:24+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T13:34:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002"},"wordCount":5078,"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\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002","name":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T13:34:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devender-pal-singh-vs-vs-on-22-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devender Pal Singh vs Vs on 22 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/32543","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=32543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}