{"id":3571,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-03T04:50:09","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T23:20:09","slug":"shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n
           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                              -1-\n\n                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                            AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                         Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998\n\n                         DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 27, 2009\n\n\nShokeen Singh\n                                                          .....APPELLANT\n                               Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab\n                                                         ....RESPONDENT\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n            HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n                          ---\n\nPresent:     Mr.Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate,\n             for the appellant.\n             Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.AG, Punjab,\n             for the respondent.\n             Mr.Chanchal K.Singla, Advocate,\n             for the complainant.\n                    ..\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Appellant-Shokeen Singh has filed this appeal against his<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh<\/p>\n
Sahib vide judgment dated 27.10.1998, for committing the offence under<\/p>\n
Sections 302 IPC in Sessions case No.65\/10.9.1996 arising from FIR No.29<\/p>\n
dated 4.8.1996 registered at Police Station Khamanon. The appellant has<\/p>\n
been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000\/-, in case of default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.<\/p>\n
2.           In this case, the aforesaid FIR (Ex.PC\/1) was registered at 6.45<\/p>\n
p.m. on the basis of the statement (Ex.PC) made by Karnail Singh, father of
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased (Kamaljit Kaur aged 18 years) to SI Harbans Singh (PW10) at<\/p>\n
4.30 p.m. on 4.8.1996 in Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. In his statement,<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh (PW3) stated that he was residing in Village Kheri Naur<\/p>\n
Singh. He was having three children. Elder was Darshan Singh, younger to<\/p>\n
him was daughter Manjit Kaur and youngest to her was Kamaljit Kaur<\/p>\n
(deceased). He further stated that on the date of the occurrence he and his<\/p>\n
wife Sukhdev Kaur went to the house of Mehar Singh (PW8) in connection<\/p>\n
with the marriage of sister’s daughter of Mehar Singh.         His daughter<\/p>\n
Kamaljit Kaur was alone in the house. When about 12.30 p.m. he along with<\/p>\n
his wife returned from the house of Mehar Singh, he heard noise coming<\/p>\n
from his house. When they entered in their house from the door towards the<\/p>\n
street, Shokeen Singh accused ran away towards the pucca road through<\/p>\n
their outer door. His daughter Kamaljit Kaur was vomiting and she told<\/p>\n
them that Shokeen Singh had entered in their house after crossing the wall;<\/p>\n
threatened her with dire consequences; grappled with her; and forcibly put<\/p>\n
some poisonous medicine in her mouth. He further stated that then they took<\/p>\n
their daughter Kamaljit Kaur to Government Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib and<\/p>\n
got her admitted. When the condition of his daughter became serious, she<\/p>\n
was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, but before she was taken to the<\/p>\n
said hospital, she had died. He stated that the motive behind the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence was that he and Bhag Singh (father of accused Shokeen Singh)<\/p>\n
being from the brotherhood were having strained relations since long and<\/p>\n
due to this Shokeen Singh had administered some poisonous substance to<\/p>\n
his daughter, as a result of which she died.\n<\/p>\n
3.          In this case, the Special Report of the aforesaid FIR was alleged
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
to have been sent to the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day, which was<\/p>\n
received on the next day, i.e., 5.8.1996 at 10.00 a.m. Further, as per the<\/p>\n
record, Dr.Balwinder Singh (PW7) sent ruqa (Ex.PK) to the police at 1.10<\/p>\n
p.m. intimating that Kamaljit Kaur was brought to the hospital as a case of<\/p>\n
suspected corrossive poisoning. In the subsequent ruqa (Ex.PM) sent to the<\/p>\n
police at 3.30 p.m., it was mentioned that she had expired at 3.15 p.m.<\/p>\n
4.            The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 5.8.1996<\/p>\n
at 11.45 a.m. by a Board consisting of three doctors. Dr. Salinder Kaur<\/p>\n
(PW6), who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, had stated before<\/p>\n
the Court that the autopsy of the deceased was conducted by a Board of<\/p>\n
three doctors. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex.PF. During<\/p>\n
post-mortem examination, no injury mark suggestive of struggle was<\/p>\n
noticed on face, lips, breasts, neck, thigh, ext. genitalia or elsewhere on<\/p>\n
body of the deceased. On P\/V examination, it was noticed that there was no<\/p>\n
injury mark on thighs, ext. genitalia. Hymen was absent. Introitos admitting<\/p>\n
two fingers loosely suggesting habitual of intercourse. Five vaginal swabs<\/p>\n
taken from introitus ant.fx.post fornix, left lat.fx. and right lat.fx.,<\/p>\n
respectively and sent for chemical examination. The sample of Viscera was<\/p>\n
taken and also sent for chemical examination. The probable time between<\/p>\n
poisoning and death was given within 6-8 hours and probable time between<\/p>\n
death and post-mortem was 24 hours. After going through the reports of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner (Ex.PH) with regard to analysis of Viscera and (Ex.PJ)<\/p>\n
with regard to vaginal swabs, she opined that the death of Kamaljit Kaur<\/p>\n
was due to chlorocompound a group of insecticide, which was sufficient to<\/p>\n
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. She further opined that from
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PJ) vide which semen was found<\/p>\n
on Exhibit 1,3 and 5, and also on the vaginal examination of her body, it<\/p>\n
could be said with certainty that she was subjected to sexual intercourse<\/p>\n
before her death. However, it could not be said whether this sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse was with or without her consent.\n<\/p>\n
5.             On 7.8.1996, the accused himself surrendered to the police and<\/p>\n
after completion of investigation, the challan was filed and charge was<\/p>\n
framed against him under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty<\/p>\n
to the charge and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
6.             In support of its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses,<\/p>\n
including PW6-Dr.Salinder Kaur, PW7-Dr.Balwinder Singh, PW3-Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh (complainant), PW4-Sardara Singh, PW8-Mehar Singh and PW10-<\/p>\n
Harbans Singh, Investigating Officer, and also exhibited certain documents.<\/p>\n
After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court put all the<\/p>\n
incriminating material to the accused while recording his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded false implication and claimed to<\/p>\n
be innocent.\n<\/p>\n
7.             After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, hearing<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for both the parties and after appreciating the evidence<\/p>\n
available on the record ,and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution<\/p>\n
has fully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the trial Court<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 302 IPC as indicated<\/p>\n
above. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case<\/p>\n
there is no direct evidence to support the prosecution allegation that the
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant had administered poison to the deceased. All the three witnesses,<\/p>\n
namely, PW3-Karnail Singh, PW4-Sardara Singh and PW8-Mehar Singh<\/p>\n
have stated that the deceased told them that the appellant in absence of her<\/p>\n
parents, had entered into the house after crossing the wall and he threatened<\/p>\n
her with dire consequences. It was also told that the appellant grappled with<\/p>\n
her and forcibly put some poisonous medicine in her mouth. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that the statement of these witnesses are totally<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the medical evidence brought on record by the<\/p>\n
prosecution. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the statement of<\/p>\n
PW6-Dr.Salinder Kaur where she had stated that during post-mortem<\/p>\n
examination, no injury mark suggestive of struggle, was seen on face, lips,<\/p>\n
breasts, neck, thigh, ext. genitalia or elsewhere on body of the deceased. On<\/p>\n
P\/V examination, it was noticed that there was no injury mark on thighs,<\/p>\n
ext. genitalia. Hymen was absent. Introitos admitting two fingers loosely.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel also referred to the statement of PW4-Sardara Singh,<\/p>\n
where he had stated that he did not notice any injury mark on any part of the<\/p>\n
body of deceased Kamaljit Kaur and there was no sign on her body to show<\/p>\n
the violence. Learned counsel stated that this evidence clearly indicates that<\/p>\n
the appellant did not grapple with the deceased and put any poisonous<\/p>\n
substance in her mouth by force.\n<\/p>\n
9.          Secondly, learned counsel submitted that there was a delay in<\/p>\n
recording the FIR, which clearly suggests that the FIR was ante-timed in<\/p>\n
order to rope the appellant in the false case after due deliberations. In this<\/p>\n
regard, learned counsel submitted that the alleged occurrence had taken<\/p>\n
place on 4.8.1996 at 12.30 p.m. The deceased was immediately taken to the
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
hospital. The doctor sent      ruqa (Ex.PK) to Incharge, Police Station,<\/p>\n
Fatehgarh Sahib at 1.10 p.m. informing him regarding the arrival of<\/p>\n
Kamaljit Kaur in the Emergency OPD as a case of suspected corrossive<\/p>\n
poisoning. After her death, ruqa (Ex.PM) was sent to the police at 3.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
wherein it was mentioned that Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was brought to the<\/p>\n
hospital due to poisoning and she had expired at 3.15 p.m. The statement of<\/p>\n
the complainant (Ex.PC) was recorded at 4.30 p.m. and FIR was registered<\/p>\n
at 6.45 p.m. He further stated that the Special Report was received by the<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate on the next date, i.e. 5.8.1996 at 10.00 a.m. The Inquest<\/p>\n
Report was also prepared on the next date, i.e., 5.8.1996, which was<\/p>\n
received by the doctor at the time of post-mortem. While referring to these<\/p>\n
facts, learned counsel argued that these facts clearly indicate that the FIR in<\/p>\n
question had been ante-timed in order to falsely implicate the appellant for<\/p>\n
the offence which was not committed by him. Learned counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that the prosecution has given no explanation for the aforesaid delay. Even<\/p>\n
HC Avtar Singh, who had delivered the Special Report to the Magistrate,<\/p>\n
has not been examined. Learned counsel further pointed out that when the<\/p>\n
patient (deceased) was brought to the hospital and was initially treated at<\/p>\n
Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, the message (Ex.DA) was flashed from<\/p>\n
Police Station, Fatehgarh Sahib to Police Station, Khamanon to the effect<\/p>\n
that patient Kamaljit Kaur had taken poison and she was admitted in Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. Learned counsel further submitted that in the<\/p>\n
Inquest Report itself it was not mentioned that the appellant had grappled<\/p>\n
with the deceased and put some poisonous substance in her mouth. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that for the first time the said prosecution version came to
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
light at the time of post-mortem examination of the deceased as PW7-<\/p>\n
Dr.Balwinder Singh in his statement before the Court stated that the version<\/p>\n
of the prosecution (that the deceased was given poison by the appellant)<\/p>\n
came for the first time in the post-mortem report. Learned counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that this is the reason that no case history, no Bed Head Ticket, no case<\/p>\n
summary of the deceased was produced by the prosecution.           Thus, the<\/p>\n
prosecution version was not a spontaneous version and it was concocted at<\/p>\n
the time of post-mortem of the deceased and the FIR etc., which were<\/p>\n
prepared on the next date, i.e., 5.8.1996 before the conduct of the post-<\/p>\n
mortem, were ante-dated, i.e., 4.8.1996.\n<\/p>\n
10.          The learned counsel further pointed out that admittedly at Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, doctor recorded the statement of Kamaljit Kaur.<\/p>\n
This fact has been admitted by PW8-Mehar Singh in his cross-examination<\/p>\n
where he has stated that doctor recorded the statement of Kamaljit Kaur in<\/p>\n
writing by his own hand in the emergency Ward in his presence and in<\/p>\n
presence of Karnail Singh (father of the deceased). Similarly, PW3-Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh has also admitted the said fact that a statement of Kamaljit Kaur was<\/p>\n
recorded by the doctor on which the doctor did not obtain his signatures.<\/p>\n
But the said dying declaration has been withheld by the prosecution for the<\/p>\n
reasons best known to it. When the prosecution has withheld the true<\/p>\n
version from the court, the adverse inference should have been drawn<\/p>\n
against it under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
11.         Learned counsel further argued that as per the medical evidence<\/p>\n
available on record, just before her death the deceased was subjected to<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse. In her statement, Dr.Salinder Kaur (PW6) had stated
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
with emphasis that keeping in view the report of the Chemical Examiner<\/p>\n
(Ex.PJ) vide which semen was found on Exhibit 1,3 and 5, and also on the<\/p>\n
vaginal examination, it could be said with certainty that she was subjected<\/p>\n
to sexual intercourse before her death. Learned counsel further submitted<\/p>\n
that the Investigating Officer had also stated before the Court that during the<\/p>\n
investigation, it came to his notice that the appellant had committed sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse with the deceased before her death. During investigation, it also<\/p>\n
came to light that appellant Shokeen Singh was having love affair with the<\/p>\n
deceased and he used to have sexual intercourse with her. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submits that the prosecution version does not explain this fact, which<\/p>\n
creates a reasonable doubt about the whole of the prosecution version.<\/p>\n
12.         Learned counsel further argued that if the appellant had given<\/p>\n
the poisonous substance to the deceased and         when the said fact was<\/p>\n
narrated by the deceased to her father, the normal reaction of the father<\/p>\n
would have been to inform the police immediately, but in the instant case in<\/p>\n
spite of the fact that the Police Station was situated near the house of the<\/p>\n
complainant, he did not inform the police. The said fact creates a doubt in<\/p>\n
the prosecution version. He further pointed out that at one point of time in<\/p>\n
his statement before the Court PW3-Karnal Singh had stated that he himself<\/p>\n
went to the Police Station to lodge the report at about 12.45 p.m. on foot. He<\/p>\n
was all alone when he went to the Police Station. He further stated that<\/p>\n
Ajaib Singh, SI, who was Incharge of the Police Station, has recorded his<\/p>\n
statement. This version of the witness is contrary to the prosecution case<\/p>\n
because as per the prosecution version, the statement of the complainant<\/p>\n
was recorded in the hospital by SI Harbans Singh. In cross-examination,
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
PW3-Karnail Singh had stated that he did not go straight-away to the<\/p>\n
hospital and only his wife had gone to the hospital along with his daughter.<\/p>\n
This fact, which is a material contradiction, creates a doubt in the<\/p>\n
prosecution version and trustworthiness of this witness. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
argued that the ocular version of the three prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW3-<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh, PW4-Sardara Singh and PW9-Pritpal Singh has not been<\/p>\n
corroborated by any other witness or any evidence available on the record.<\/p>\n
13.         In the last, learned counsel submitted that in this case there is<\/p>\n
no direct evidence to the effect that the appellant had forcibly given<\/p>\n
poisonous substance to the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution is<\/p>\n
based on the circumstantial evidence. He submitted that in such case the<\/p>\n
prosecution has to establish a strong motive for committing the alleged<\/p>\n
offence, but in this case the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for<\/p>\n
committing the alleged crime. As per the prosecution version, the motive for<\/p>\n
committing the crime was that there was strained relations between the<\/p>\n
complainant and father of the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that as<\/p>\n
per the statement of PW3-Karnail Singh, appellant is his        real cousin.<\/p>\n
Merely because the relations between Karnail Singh and father of appellant<\/p>\n
Bhag Singh were strained, it is not probable that the appellant would have<\/p>\n
given poisonous substance to the deceased by force after crossing the wall<\/p>\n
of the house. Learned counsel submitted that from the evidence it appears<\/p>\n
that when the father of the deceased had seen the deceased in a<\/p>\n
compromising position with the appellant and when the appellant had run<\/p>\n
away from the spot, the father of the deceased might have rebuked his<\/p>\n
daughter for having physical relations with the appellant, the cousin of her
\n            Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                              -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
father Karnail Singh, due to which she might have committed suicide and<\/p>\n
later on, on the next date the alleged version was concocted by ante-timing<\/p>\n
the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
14.          On the other hand, learned State counsel, while relying upon<\/p>\n
the statements of the prosecution witnesses, out of whom two are<\/p>\n
independent witnesses, the reports of the Chemical Examiner as well the<\/p>\n
opinion of Dr. Salinder Kaur (PW6) that the death was due to poison,<\/p>\n
contended that the trial Court has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that<\/p>\n
the appellant had committed the murder of Kamaljit Kaur, therefore, he has<\/p>\n
rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
15.          After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the<\/p>\n
evidence led by the prosecution, including the defence of the appellant, and<\/p>\n
other documents available on the record, we are of the opinion that in this<\/p>\n
case the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt that the appellant had threatened Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) with dire<\/p>\n
consequences, grappled with her and forcibly put some poisonous substance<\/p>\n
in her mouth.\n<\/p>\n
16.          From the medical evidence available on the record, it has been<\/p>\n
established that Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) had died due to consumption of<\/p>\n
chlorocompound poison. Now the question for determination is whether the<\/p>\n
appellant had poured poisonous substance in the mouth of Kamaljit Kaur<\/p>\n
(deceased) by force in the manner as alleged or she herself had consumed<\/p>\n
the same and committed suicide. In this case, there is no direct evidence for<\/p>\n
proving the fact that the appellant had given the poisonous substance to the
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased by force. In order to prove that the appellant gave poisonous<\/p>\n
substance to the deceased by force on the day of the occurrence, the<\/p>\n
prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely, PW3-Karnail Singh<\/p>\n
(father of the deceased), PW4-Sardara Singh (a resident of the village) and<\/p>\n
PW8-Mehar Singh (friend of PW1-Gurmail Singh). All these witnesses<\/p>\n
have stated that when they reached in the house of Karnail Singh, they saw<\/p>\n
that Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was vomiting while lying on the cot. She was<\/p>\n
crying that Shokeen Singh son of Bhag Singh (appellant) had administered<\/p>\n
some poisonous medicine to her forcibly after he had grappled with her.<\/p>\n
These witnesses further stated that a Kirpan, a green colour dupatta and a<\/p>\n
glass containing the poisonous medicine, were lying near the cot. From the<\/p>\n
statements of these witnesses, it is clear that they had not seen appellant<\/p>\n
Shokeen Singh putting some poisonous substance forcibly in the mouth of<\/p>\n
the deceased. Their version is that the deceased was saying that after<\/p>\n
crossing the common wall, the appellant threatened and grappled with her<\/p>\n
and forcibly put some poisonous medicine\/substance in her month. There is<\/p>\n
a material contradiction in the statement of PW3-Karnail Singh and the<\/p>\n
prosecution version. As per the statement of PW3-Karnail Singh, after the<\/p>\n
alleged occurrence, he went to the Police Station to lodge the FIR, whereas<\/p>\n
his wife had gone to the hospital along with         his daughter. He has<\/p>\n
categorically stated that he did not straight-away go to the hospital. He has<\/p>\n
further stated that Ajaib Singh, SI (PW5), who was Incharge of the Police<\/p>\n
Station, had recorded his statement. On the other hand, SI Harbans Singh<\/p>\n
had stated that he had recorded the statement of PW3-Karnail Singh in the<\/p>\n
hospital on the basis of the FIR (Ex.PC\/1) was registered. In our opinion,
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
this is a material contradiction which reflects on the truthfulness of the<\/p>\n
statement of this witness.   Further, this version given by all the three<\/p>\n
witnesses is not only improbable but is also inconsistent with the medical<\/p>\n
evidence. If the appellant had grappled with the deceased and forcibly put<\/p>\n
some poisonous substance in her mouth, then certainly there would have<\/p>\n
been some injuries on the body of the deceased. If a person is putting by<\/p>\n
force some poisonous substance in the mouth of a person, normally such<\/p>\n
person would obstruct the person from giving him poisonous substance by<\/p>\n
force. In this case, as per the prosecution version, it is not only that the<\/p>\n
poisonous substance was given forcibly but before doing so the appellant<\/p>\n
had grappled with the deceased. As per the medical evidence, there was no<\/p>\n
injury mark on the body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
17.         In addition to the above material inconsistencies, there are other<\/p>\n
circumstances which go against the prosecution version. Admittedly, PW3-<\/p>\n
Karnail Singh and PW8-Mehar Singh had admitted in their cross-<\/p>\n
examinations that when Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was lying in the hospital,<\/p>\n
the doctor, who was treating her, had recorded her statement in writing. But<\/p>\n
the said statement of the deceased, which could have been best piece of<\/p>\n
evidence being her dying declaration, has been withheld by the prosecution<\/p>\n
for the reasons best known to it. The argument of the learned State counsel<\/p>\n
that PW6-Dr.Salinder Kaur in her statement had stated that at 1.10 p.m.<\/p>\n
when Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was brought to the hospital and when she<\/p>\n
was conscious she was saying that she was forced to consume some<\/p>\n
corrossive poison alleged to have been given by Shokeen Singh (appellant),<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted because the said witness never attended the patient when
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
the patient was brought to the hospital. She had only conducted the post-<\/p>\n
mortem examination. Not only this, the prosecution has also not placed on<\/p>\n
record the patient’s case history, Bed Head Ticket and case summary of the<\/p>\n
deceased. It seems that those documents were not produced because those<\/p>\n
might have gone against the prosecution. Further, when the patient was<\/p>\n
brought to the hospital and was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh<\/p>\n
Sahib, the message (Ex.DA) was flashed from Police Station, Fatehgarh<\/p>\n
Sahib to Police Station, Khamanon to the effect that patient Kamaljit Kaur<\/p>\n
had taken poison and she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib.<\/p>\n
18.         There is another important fact which further creates a doubt in<\/p>\n
the prosecution version, i.e., the prosecution has not explained at all the<\/p>\n
evidence came on the record about the fact that just before her death the<\/p>\n
deceased was subjected to sexual intercourse. PW6-Dr.Salinder Kaur in her<\/p>\n
statement in the Court had stated that after receipt of the report of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner and other factors noticed at the time of post-mortem<\/p>\n
examination, she could say with certainty that before her death Kamaljit<\/p>\n
Kaur (deceased) was subjected to sexual intercourse. Further, PW10-SI<\/p>\n
Harbans Singh, Investigating Officer had stated before the Court that during<\/p>\n
the investigation, it came to his notice that the appellant had committed<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse with the deceased before her death and also that he was<\/p>\n
having love affair with the deceased and he used to have sexual intercourse<\/p>\n
with her. The non-explanation of the said fact by the prosecution creates a<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt about the happening of the occurrence in the manner as<\/p>\n
narrated by the prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
19.         In the instant case, the prosecution version rests only on the
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence. In such cases, the prosecution has to establish a<\/p>\n
strong motive for committing the alleged offence. In the present case, the<\/p>\n
alleged motive is that PW3-Karnail Singh (complainant) and father of the<\/p>\n
appellant were having strained relations. It has come on record that the<\/p>\n
complainant and the appellant are cousins (as fathers of both of them were<\/p>\n
real brothers). It has also come on record that the house of the appellant is<\/p>\n
adjoining the house of the complainant having a common wall in between<\/p>\n
them. In our opinion, the alleged motive does not seem to be probable that<\/p>\n
merely because fathers of the appellant and complainant were having<\/p>\n
strained relations, the appellant would give poisonous substance to his<\/p>\n
daughter by force. Further, the alleged motive loses its significance when<\/p>\n
during the investigation it has come on record that the deceased and the<\/p>\n
appellant were having love affair and the appellant used to have sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse with the Kamaljit Kaur (deceased). In view of the above-said<\/p>\n
weak motive, which even has not been proved by examining any witness,<\/p>\n
the prosecution version appears to be doubtful that the appellant had put<\/p>\n
some poisonous substance by force in the mouth of the deceased.<\/p>\n
20.         There are some other important facts available on the record of<\/p>\n
the case which clearly indicate that in this case the FIR was ante-timed in<\/p>\n
order to rope the appellant in the false case after due deliberations.<\/p>\n
Undisputedly, the occurrence had taken place on 4.8.1996 at 12.30 p.m. The<\/p>\n
deceased was immediately taken to the hospital. The ruqa (Ex.PK) was sent<\/p>\n
to Incharge, Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib at 1.10 p.m. giving information<\/p>\n
about the arrival of Kamaljit Kaur in emergency Ward as a case of<\/p>\n
suspected corrossive poisoning. After her arrival, looking into her serious
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                                 -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
condition, she was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala vide slip (Ex.PL)<\/p>\n
at 2.15 p.m. After her death at 3.30 p.m., another ruqa (Ex.PM) was issued<\/p>\n
mentioning the death of Kamaljit Kaur due to poisoning. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
statement (Ex.PC) of PW3-Karnail Singh (complainant) was recorded at<\/p>\n
4.30 p.m. and FIR was registered at 6.45 p.m. Undisputedly, the Special<\/p>\n
Report was received by the Judicial Magistrate on the next date, i.e.<\/p>\n
5.8.1996 at 10.00 a.m. In this case, the Inquest Report (Ex.PA), though<\/p>\n
shown to have been prepared on 4.8.1996, but it was received by the doctor<\/p>\n
only on 5.8.1996 at 8.40 a.m. along with application (Ex.PG) for<\/p>\n
constitution of the board for the purpose of conducting post-mortem of the<\/p>\n
deceased. It is interesting to note that in the Inquest Report, the prosecution<\/p>\n
version, which was given in the statement (Ex.PC) of the complainant,<\/p>\n
which was recorded at 4.30 p.m. on 4.8.1996, has not been mentioned at all.<\/p>\n
In the entire Inquest Report (Ex.PA), it has not been stated that the deceased<\/p>\n
was given the poisonous substance by force by the appellant. PW7-<\/p>\n
Dr.Balwinder Singh, who attended the patient and conducted the post-<\/p>\n
mortem of the deceased, has categorically stated that before the post-<\/p>\n
mortem of the deceased, the prosecution version that the deceased was<\/p>\n
given poisonous substance by the appellant by force, did not come to their<\/p>\n
notice. These facts, in our opinion, indicate that in this case the FIR was<\/p>\n
ante-timed. The Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., 1994(5)<\/p>\n
SCC 188 which has been followed in Thanedar Singh v. State of M.P., 2002<\/p>\n
(1) SCC 487, has observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a
\n             vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of
\n             appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting
\n Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                                -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
  upon; prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest
\n  information regarding the circumstances in which the crime
\n  was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and
\n  the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, as also the names
\n  of the eye-witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often
\n  results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
\n  advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
\n  introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a
\n  view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is
\n  alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for
\n  certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the
\n  copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the
\n  local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late
\n  it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at
\n  the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course
\n  the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the
\n  delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the
\n  local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this
\n  behalf. The second external check equally important is the
\n  sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its
\n  reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report,
\n  prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is aimed at serving a
\n  statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the
\n  details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during
\n  inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of
\n  those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story
\n  was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape
\n  and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due
\n  deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give
\n  it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on
\n  account of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its
\n  value and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has
\n  been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
            proceedings were over at the spot by PW8.”\n<\/p>\n
21.         As per the aforesaid judgment, there are two checks to ascertain<\/p>\n
the fact whether an FIR was ante-timed or not. In the present case, if we<\/p>\n
apply both the checks, then it appears that the FIR was not lodged at the<\/p>\n
time it was alleged to have been registered. In this case, the Special Report<\/p>\n
was received by the Judicial Magistrate on 5.8.1996 at 10.00 a.m. HC Avtar<\/p>\n
Singh, who had delivered the Special Report to the Magistrate, has not been<\/p>\n
examined to give satisfactory explanation for the delay in delivery of the<\/p>\n
Special Report by the Judicial Magistrate. The Inquest Report though shown<\/p>\n
to have been prepared on 4.8.1996, does not contain the detail of the FIR,<\/p>\n
gist of the statement recorded and the fact that the appellant had grappled<\/p>\n
with the deceased and put some poisonous substance in her mouth. Thus<\/p>\n
from the above facts it appears that the FIR was recorded later on after due<\/p>\n
deliberations and consultations, and was then ante-timed to give colour to<\/p>\n
the prosecution case. This fact of ante-timing the FIR creates a strong<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt about the false implication of the appellant while twisting<\/p>\n
the version that the appellant had grappled with Kamaljit Kaur (deceased)<\/p>\n
and forcibly put some poisonous substance in her mouth.\n<\/p>\n
22.         In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, whether the<\/p>\n
appellant is entitled for the benefit of a reasonable doubt. In administration<\/p>\n
of criminal justice, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a<\/p>\n
presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to<\/p>\n
show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In cases<\/p>\n
where the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the<\/p>\n
accused, the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. While
\n           Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998                               -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
coming to such conclusion, the case of the prosecution must be judged as a<\/p>\n
whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. The Court may doubt<\/p>\n
the guilt of the accused resting on direct or circumstantial evidence or on<\/p>\n
confessional evidence. The evidence of the eye-witness may not inspire<\/p>\n
confidence for diverse reasons and the benefit of doubt may be given to the<\/p>\n
accused. The principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused operates<\/p>\n
only in those cases where the evidence is extremely evenly balanced either<\/p>\n
for or against the accused and the conduct of the accused is equally<\/p>\n
consistent with his guilt as well as with his innocence: where the reliance<\/p>\n
cannot be placed on the prosecution evidence because of its doubtful<\/p>\n
character; where the circumstantial        evidence is capable of two<\/p>\n
constructions, one in favour of the accused and another against him; and<\/p>\n
where doubts are entertained as who is falsely implicated and who is not.<\/p>\n
Keeping in view the said principle and various doubts, as noticed herein-<\/p>\n
above by this Court in the prosecution version and evidence, we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant<\/p>\n
deserves the benefit of doubt. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed<\/p>\n
to prove the alleged guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
23.         In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence awarded by the trial court are set aside and the appellant is<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                     (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)\n                                              JUDGE\n\n\n\nJanuary 27, 2009                       ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )\nvkg                                           JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.576-DB of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 27, 2009 Shokeen Singh …..APPELLANT Versus The State of Punjab ….RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T23:20:09+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T23:20:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T23:20:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T23:20:09+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T23:20:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":5331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009","name":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T23:20:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shokeen-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shokeen Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/3571","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=3571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}