{"id":36771,"date":"1988-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988"},"modified":"2018-03-04T14:34:52","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T09:04:52","slug":"bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","title":{"rendered":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1011, \t\t 1988 SCR (3) 409<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHUPINDER SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/04\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1011\t\t  1988 SCR  (3) 409\n 1988 SCC  (3) 513\t  JT 1988 (2)\t 23\n 1988 SCALE  (1)678\n\n\nACT:\n     Criminal Procedure Code, 1973\/1898-Section 293-Chemical\nExaminer-Report of-A  piece  of\t evidence-Does\tnot  require\nformal proof-Should  normally be forwarded to the doctor who\nperformed autopsy report.\n     Criminal Trial-Poison murder cases-Invariably committed\nunder cover  and cloak\tof secrecy-Prosecution\tentitled  to\nestablish circumstances\t consistent with  the hypothesis  of\nthe guilt of the accused.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     Bhupinder Singh,  appellant, his  father Sher Singh and\nhis mother  Mukhtiar Kaur,  were tried\tfor  committing\t the\nmurder\tof   Bhupinder\t Singh's   wife,   Gian\t  Kaur,\t  by\nadministering poison.  The Trial Court held that the accused\nhad strong  motive for the murder as the deceased was unable\nto satisfy  their demand  for dowry  for which she was being\nconstantly harassed.  The Trial\t Court further held that the\ndeath of Gian Kaur was not accidental or suicidal or by food\npoisoning. The\tTrial Court  held that\tthe accused  had the\nopportunity  to\t  accomplish  their  design,  and  they\t did\nadminister poison  which the deceased must have resisted and\nthereby suffered injuries on her body. The Trial Court found\nall the\t three accused\tguilty of  the offence under section\n302 read  with section\t34  I.P.C.  and\t sentenced  them  to\nimprisonment for life.\n     It was urged before the High Court that the prosecution\nhas failed to establish by evidence the necessary conditions\nfor the\t proof of  murder by poisoning. Disagreeing with the\ncontentions and\t the theory  of suicide\t put  forth  by\t the\nappellant, the\tHigh  Court  confirmed\tthe  conviction\t and\nsentence on  Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh while acquitting\nMukhtiar Kaur.\n     The  present   appeal  by\tspecial\t leave\tis  only  by\nBhupinder Singh.\n     The main  contention of the appellant is that in a case\nof murder  by poison  there are\t three\tmain  points  to  be\nproved; firstly,  did the  deceased die\t of  the  poison  in\nquestion; secondly, had the accused got the\n410\npoison in  question in\this or\ther possession, and thirdly,\nhad the\t accused an  opportunity to administer the poison in\nquestion to  the deceased. It is contended that the evidence\nfalls short  of these requirements, and in particular, as to\nthe question  of proof\tof possession of the poison with the\naccused.\n     The second\t contention of\tthe appellant  is that it is\nnot enough  for the chemical examiner merely to state in his\nreport\tthat   the  poison-Organo  phosphorus  compound\t was\npresent in  the substance  sent for  examination; he  should\nhave also  stated that\ta lethal  dose\tof  the\t poison\t was\ndetected. It is submitted that his report should be full and\ncomplete to  take the  place of evidence which he would have\ngiven if he were called to Court as witness.\n     Dismissing the appeal, this Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1) Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nprovides that  the report  of scientific experts may be used\nas evidence  in any  inquiry, trial  or other proceedings of\nthe Court. [416D]\n     (2) No  hard and  fast rule can be laid down as regards\nthe value  to be  attached to  the report  of  the  chemical\nexaminer. [416D]\n     (3) The  chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an\nopinion as  to the cause of death but merely gives report of\nthe chemical  examination. The report itself is not crucial.\nIt is  a place of evidece. The only protection to it is that\nit does\t not require  any formal proof. It is, however, open\nto the\tCourt, if  it  thinks  fit,  to\t call  the  chemical\nexaminer and  examine him  as to  the subject  matter of the\nreport. The  report should  normally  be  forwarded  to\t the\ndoctor who conducted the autopsy. [416D-F]\n     (4)  In  poison  murder  cases,  the  accused  are\t not\nacquitted solely  on  the  failure  of\tthe  prosecution  to\nestablish one  or the  other requirement. They are not to be\nacquitted solely  on the  ground that  the  prosecution\t has\nfailed to  prove that  the accused  had the  poison  in\t his\npossession, and are to be acquitted by the Court taking into\naccount\t the   totality\t of   the  circumstances   including\ninsufficient motive, weakness in the chain of circumstantial\nevidence and  likelihood of the deceased committing suicide.\n[421C-E]\n     (5) Murder\t by poisoning  is run  like any other murder\nand the\t accused  cannot  have\ta  better  chance  of  being\nexempted from sanctions\n411\nthan in other kinds of murders. [422B-C]\n     (6) The  poison murder  cases are not to be put outside\nthe rule  of circumstantial  evidence. There  may be obvious\nvery many facts and circumstances out of which the Court may\nbe justified  in  drawing  permissible\tinference  that\t the\naccused\t was  in  possession  of  the  poison  in  question.\n[421H; 422A]\n     (7) The  insistence on  proof of  possession of  poison\nwith  the  accused  invariably\tin  every  case\t is  neither\ndesirable nor  permissible. It\twould mean  to introduce  an\nextraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning.\n[422B]\n     (8) Murder\t by poison is invariably committed under the\ncover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to\nanother\t in   the  presence   of  others.   The\t person\t who\nadministers poison  to another\tin secrecy  will not  keep a\nportion of  it for  the investigating  officer to  come\t and\ncollect\t it.  The  person  who\tcommits\t such  murder  would\nnaturally take\tcare to\t eliminate and\tdestroy the evidence\nagainst him.  In such  case, it\t would be impossible for the\nprosecution to\tprove possession of poison with the accused.\nThe prosecution\t may, however, establish other circumstances\nconsistent only\t with the  hypothesis of  the guilt  of\t the\naccused. The Court then would not be justified in acquitting\nthe accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to\nprove possession of the poison with the accused. [421E-G]\n     Mt. Gajrani  and another  v. Emperor,  A.I.R. 1933\t All\n394; State v. Fateh Bahadur, A.I.R. 1958 All 1; Chandra Kant\nMyalchand Seth's  case, (Criminal  Appeal No.  120  of\t1957\ndecided on  19.2.1958): Dharambir  Singh  v.  The  State  of\nPunjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958;\nMohan v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh,  A.I.R.<\/a> 1960\t SC 669; Ram\nGopal v.  State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.<\/a> 1972 S.C. 656; Sharda\nB. Chand  Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 1 SCR 88 and\nAnanth Chintaman  Lagu v.  The State  of Bombay, A.I.R.<\/a> 1960\nS.C. 500, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n379 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  13.7.1984  of\t the
\nPunjab and  Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 82 D.B. of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
412<\/span><\/p>\n
     R.S. Suri for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     JAGANNATHA SHETTY,\t J. One may ask the question whether
\nmurder by  poisoning is\t not run  like any other murder? The
\nlearned counsel\t for the appellant purports to state that it
\nis not.\t He relies upon the judicial prescriptions as to the
\nburden of  proof in  “poison-murder” cases. He contends that
\nthe prosecution\t must prove “that the accused had the poison
\nin his\tpossession”. He\t asserts that  failure to  establish
\nthat factor should entail the acquittal of the accused. This
\nis a  vital question  which goes far beyond the case and it,
\ntherefore, requires careful consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhupinder Singh-Appellant was prosecuted for the murder
\nof  his\t wife  by  poisoning.  He  was\tsentenced  for\tlife
\nimprisonment by\t the Additional\t Sessions Judge, Faridkot in
\nSession Case  No. 86  of 1983.\tHis conviction\tand sentence
\nhave been  affirmed by\tthe Punjab and Haryana High Court in
\ncriminal appeal\t No. 82-DB  of 1984.  He has  preferred this
\nappeal by  special  leave  challenging\tthe  conviction\t and
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
     We may first advert to the prosecution case. It reveals
\na sad  story. It  runs like  this: Gian\t Kaur, the victim in
\nthis case is the only daughter of Baltej Singh. Baltej Singh
\nlike many  other parents  thought that his problems would be
\nsolved by  the marriage\t of his daughter. He got her married
\nto  Bhupinder\tSingh  by  spending  all  his  savings.\t His
\nrelatives also\tcontributed for\t the marriage.\tBut ill-luck
\nwould have  it, his  problems started  immediately after the
\nmarriage. Bhupinder  Singh and\this parents wanted Gian Kaur
\nto bring  Rs.\t10,000 from her father. It was nothing but a
\ndemand\tfor   dowry.  They  stopped  up\t their\tdemand\twith
\nharassment to  Gian Kaur. Gian Kaur informed her father. The
\nfather could not arrange that much of amount. He had already
\nspent all  that he  had in  connection with her marriage. He
\nhad also  then given  presents in cash and kind to Bhupinder
\nSingh. So  he felt  helpless.  Unmerciful,  Bhupinder  Singh
\nasked his wife to go back to her parents’ house. So she left
\nto seek shelter with her parents. She remained with them for
\nabout eight  months. But  how long the father could keep his
\nmarried daughter  away from  her husband. Some parents think
\nthat it\t is a  reflection upon\tthem. Baltej Singh also must
\nhave thought  like that.  He somehow  arranged Rs.6,000\t and
\nsent Gian  Kaur to  her husband’s  house. Gian Kaur rejoined
\nher husband  upon  making  the\tpayment\t of  Rs.6,000.\tThat
\nappears to have satisfied Bhupinder Singh for about
\n413<\/span>
\none year.  In the  meantime, Gian  Kaur had  a\tmale  child.
\nNaturally  there   was\tjubilation   for  Baltej  Singh.  He
\nperformed the  customary Chuchhak  ceremony and\t again\tgave
\nRs.4,000 and  a buffalo\t as  presents  to  Bhupinder  Singh.
\nBhupinder Singh\t ought to have been happy and satisfied. But
\nhe was not. It was alleged by the prosecution that this time
\nhe demanded  a motorcycle.  Baltej Singh  could not give it.
\nGian Kaur,  as usual,  was again  the target. It was further
\nalleged by  the prosecution  that Bhupinder Singh threatened
\nto kill\t his wife  if motorcycle  was not given to him. Gian
\nKaur had  kept her father informed about the said demand and
\nthe threat.\n<\/p>\n
     On July  13, 1983,\t Gian  Kaur  died  under  mysterious
\ncircumstances. Upon receiving that information, Baltej Singh
\nwith his  brother Baldev  Singh reached\t the  place  in\t the
\nevening of  that day.  They saw\t Gian Kaur,  lying dead on a
\ncharpai. They  suspected foul  play. Baltej  Singh gave\t the
\ninformation to the police narrating all the above events. He
\ninformed  the\tpolice\tthat  his  daughter  was  killed  by
\nBhupinder Singh\t and his  parents by administering something
\nto her.\t On the\t basis of  that information,  the F.I.R. was
\nissued. The  investigation of  the case\t was taken by A.S.I.
\n(PW 4).\t The body  of Gian Kaur was sent to Dr. Sant Prakash
\nSingh (PW  6) for  post-mortem.\t The  Doctor  Prakash  Singh
\nnoticed five minor injuries on the body of the deceased. The
\nbrain  and   other  vital  organs  were\t also  found  to  be
\ncongested. The\tDoctor sent  stomach contents,\tportions  of
\nsmall intestine,  liver, spleen\t and kidney  to the chemical
\nexaminer for the purpose of analysis.\n<\/p>\n
     The chemical examiner in his report dated September 14,
\n1983 has stated that an Organo phosphorus compound was found
\nin the substance sent to him for analysis. The investigating
\nofficer sent  that report  for opinion of the Doctor Prakash
\nSingh as to the cause of death of Gian Kaur. The Doctor gave
\nhis opinion  that the  death of\t Gian Kaur was due to organo
\nphosphorus compound poisoning.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhupinder Singh,  his father  Sher Singh and his mother
\nMukhtiar Kaur  were tried  for committing the murder of Gian
\nkaur by administering poison.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution  examined six witnesses and the accused
\nin turn\t examined one. The trial court after considering the
\nevidence and other material on record held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  The accused  had strong  motive to get rid of Gian
\n     Kaur. Apparently motive for the murder was the
\n     inability of Gian Kaur
\n414<\/span>
\n     to satisfy the demand for dowry. The death of Gian Kaur
\n     was not accidental or suicidal. There was no reason for
\n     her to  commit suicide. It was also not a death by food
\n     poisoning since  the accused and deceased shared common
\n     food on the fateful night. There was none else in the
\n     house on that night except Gian Kaur and the accused.
\n     The accused had an opportunity to accomplish their
\n     design. The accused must have administered the poison
\n     to the victim. The injuries found on the body of the
\n     deceased indicated the resistence she must have offered
\n     when the poison was administered to her. With these and
\n     other conclusions, the trial court finally said:
\n\t  “In the background of the circumstances and
\n\t  evidence discussed above, the only conclusion
\n\t  possible is that Bhupinder Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur
\n\t  did administer poison organo phosphorus compound
\n\t  to Gian Kaur and did cause her death with common
\n\t  intention, which  was to get rid of her as she had
\n\t  not been able to persuade his father to meet their
\n\t  demand for motorcycle so as to clear way for
\n\t  another marriage of Bhupinder Singh in his
\n\t  youthful years in order to get more and more of
\n\t  dowry.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Accordingly,  the\ttrial  court  found  all  the  three
\naccused guilty\tof the\toffence under  Section 302 read with
\nSection 34  I.P.C. They\t were sentenced\t to imprisonment for
\nlife.\n<\/p>\n
     Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence
\nthe accused  appealed to the High Court. It was urged before
\nthe  High  Court  that\tthe  death  of\tGian  Kaur  was\t not
\nhomicidal.  She\t must  have  in\t all  probability  committed
\nsuicide since  she was\tsuffering from\ttuberculosis. It was
\nalso urged  that the  prosecution has failed to establish by
\nevidence the necessary conditions for the proof of murder by
\npoisoning.  The\t  High\tCourt\tdid  not  agree\t with  those
\ncontentions. The High Court ruled out the theory of suicide.
\nIt was observed that there was no evidence to show that Gian
\nKaur was  suffering from  tuberculosis or  ever treated\t for
\nthat disease. The High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Case of murder by poisoning is always one of
\n\t  secrecy. Almost in every such case one has to
\n\t  depend on circumstances. Doubtless, before a
\n\t  person can be convicted on the strength of
\n\t  circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in
\n\t  question must be satisfactorily established
\n415<\/span>
\n\t  and the proved circumstances must bring home the
\n\t  offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If
\n\t  those circumstances or some of them can be
\n\t  explained by any reasonable hypothesis then the
\n\t  accused must\thave the benefit of that hypothesis.
\n\t  But in assessing the evidence imaginary
\n\t  possibility has no place. What has to be
\n\t  considered are ordinary human probabilities. We
\n\t  have already referred to some important
\n\t  circumstances which in our opinion point out to
\n\t  the guilt of Bhupinder Singh and Sher Singh
\n\t  appellants. In the well-known case of Anant
\n\t  Chantman Lagu\t v. The State of Bombay, A.I.R.<\/a> 1960
\n\t  S.C. 500 their Lordships held that in a cause of
\n\t  poisoning, the prosecution must establish: (a)
\n\t  that the death took place by poisoning; (b) that
\n\t  the accused  had the poison in his possession; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) that the accused had an opportunity to
\n\t  administer the poison to the deceased. All the
\n\t  three requirements are satisfied in this case.
\n\t  There is no dispute that the death of the deceased
\n\t  was caused by poisoning. It has been established
\n\t  by the chemical examiner’s report, that the
\n\t  viscera contained organo phosphorus compound
\n\t  poison. The  evidence of the prosecution witnesses
\n\t  has established  that the aforesaid two appellants
\n\t  had the opportunity to administer poison to the
\n\t  deceased and that they had the motive to commit
\n\t  the crime. Their running away from the house at
\n\t  the time when the Investigating Officer visited
\n\t  their house is also consistent with their guilt
\n\t  and not with their innocence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     With these\t observations, the  High Court confirmed the
\nconviction and\tsentence on  Sher Singh\t and Bhupinder Singh
\nwhile acquitting Mukhtiar Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
     The present appeal is only by Bhupinder Singh.
\n     Before embarking on the validity of the main submission
\nmade in\t this appeal,  we may  first dispose  of  one  other
\ncontention urged  for the appellant. Mr. R.N. Kohli, learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant  submitted that  it is not enough
\nfor the chemical examiner merely to state in his report that
\nthe organo  phosphorus compound was present in the substance
\nsent to him for examination. He should have also stated that
\na lethal  dose of  the organo  phosphorus      compound\t was
\ndetected in  the substance sent to him. His report should be
\nfull and  complete to  take the\t place of  evidence which he
\nwould have  given if  he were called to Court as witness. In
\nthe absence of such particulars, the death by
\n416<\/span>
\npoisoning cannot be inferred. In support of this contention,
\nlearned counsel\t relied upon  two decisions of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court viz. (i) Mt. Gajrani and Anr. v. Emperor, [A.I.R.
\n1933 Allahabad\t394] and (ii) State v. Fateh Bahadur & Ors.,
\n[A.I.R. 1958,  Allahabad 1].  In  the  first  case,  it\t was
\nobserved that  it was  not enough  for the chemical examiner
\nmerely to  state his opinion. He must also state the grounds
\nwhich formed the basis of his opinion. The second case was a
\ncase of\t death by  arsenic poisoning.  The chemical examiner
\ndid not\t state the  quantity of\t arsenic poison found in the
\nviscera of  the deceased.  He did not state whether it was a
\nfatal dose  or not. The High Court pointed out that it would
\nbe of  the utmost  importance before  a Court could find any
\nindividual guilty  of murder  by  arsenic  poison  that\t its
\ncomplete analysis  should be made. It is not enough to state
\nthat arsenic was detected in the body of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     In our opinion, these observations cannot be taken as a
\nrigid statement\t of law.  (No hard and fast rule can be laid
\ndown as\t regards the  value to\tbe attached to the report of
\nthe chemical  examiner. Section\t 293 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure provides  that the report ofscientific experts may
\nbe  used   as  evidence\t in  any  inquiry,  trial  or  other
\nproceedings of the court. The chemical examiner does not, as
\na rule,\t give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely
\ngives report  of the  chemical examination  of the substance
\nsent to\t him. The  report by  itself is not crucial. It is a
\npiece of evidence. The only protection to it is that it does
\nnot require  any formal\t proof. It  is, however, open to the
\nCourt if  it thinks  fit to  call the  chemical examiner and
\nexamine him  as to  the subject\t matter of  the report.\t The
\nreport should  normally\t be  forwarded\tto  the\t Doctor\t who
\nconducted the  autopsy. In  the instant case, that was done.
\nThe Doctor who conducted the autopsy was given a copy of the
\nreport of  the chemical examiner. The Doctor in the light of
\nthe report  gave his opinion that the death of Gian Kaur was
\nby poisoning  i.e. organo phosphorus compound. The report of
\nthe chemical examiner coupled with the opinion of the Doctor
\nis, therefore,\tsufficient to  hold that  it was  a death by
\npoisoning.\n<\/p>\n
     This takes\t us to\tthe main  contention urged  for\t the
\nappellant. It  was urged  that in a case of murder by poison
\nthere are  three main  points to  be proved, firstly did the
\ndeceased die  of the  poison in\t question; secondly, had the
\naccused got the poison in question in his or her possession;
\nand thirdly,  had the  accused an  opportunity to administer
\nthe poison  in question\t to the\t deceased. It was also urged
\nthat if\t the prosecution  fails to prove these factors, then
\nthe accused  cannot be\tconvicted. The evidence in the case,
\naccording to learned counsel falls
\n417<\/span>
\nshort of  these requirements  and, in  particular, as to the
\nquestion of  proof of  possession of  the  poison  with\t the
\naccused and therefore the accused is entitled to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  been referred  to some decisions of this Court
\nin support  of the  contention urged.  We have also examined
\nsome other  cases bearing  on the  question raised.  A brief
\nsurvey of  these cases\twould be  useful to  appreciate\t the
\ncontention urged for the appellant. There are two unreported
\ndecisions of  this Court  of the year 1958. The first one is
\nin Chandra  Kant Myalchand  Seth’s case [Criminal Appeal No.
\n120 of\t1957 decided  on 19.2.1958].  There a  woman died of
\nalkali cyanide.\t The husband  of the  deceased was tried and
\nconvicted by  the trial court for the offence of murder. The
\nconviction was set aside by this Court. In the course of the
\njudgment, it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Before a person can be convicted of murder by
\n\t  poisoning, it is necessary to prove that the death
\n\t  of the deceased was caused by poison, that the
\n\t  poison in question was in possession of the
\n\t  accused and that poison was administered by the
\n\t  accused to the deceased.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The acquittal,  however, was based on the consideration
\nof the\tentire facts  and circumstances\t of the case. It was
\nfound that  there was  a greater  motive to  the deceased to
\ncommit suicide\tthan to\t the accused  to commit murder. This
\nCourt also  took note  of the  concern and  conduct  of\t the
\naccused when  he  found\t his  wife  lying  unconscious.\t The
\naccused ran  to the  house of his friend and returned with a
\nDoctor to  render assistance  to  the  victim.\tThe  accused
\ncalled another\tDoctor for  the same  purpose. He  was\talso
\nfound weeping  all the\twhile. Taking  into consideration of
\nall these  factors, this  Court found  no  justification  to
\nsustain the conviction of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Dharambir Singh  v. State\tof Punjab,  (Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 98\tof 1958\t decided on  4.11.1958) is  another case  of
\nhomicidal action  by cyanide  poisoning. It  was perhaps  in
\nthis case,  the guidelines  as to the proof of certain facts
\nin “poison  murder cases”  were laid  down by this Court. It
\nwas observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Where the evidence is circumstantial the
\n\t  fact that the accused had motive to cause death of
\n\t  the deceased, though relevant, is not enough to
\n\t  dispense with the proof of certain facts which are
\n\t  essential to be proved in such cases, namely
\n\t  (firstly) did the deceased die of poison in
\n418<\/span>
\n\t  question? (secondly) had the accused the poison in
\n\t  his possession? and (thirdly) had the accused an
\n\t  opportunity to administer the poison in question
\n\t  to the deceased? It is only when the motive is
\n\t  there and these facts are all proved that the
\n\t  court may  be able to draw the inference, that the
\n\t  poison was administered by the accused to the
\n\t  deceased resulting in his death.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After  laying   down  these   principles,\t the   court
\nconsidered the entire evidence on record which indicated the
\nlikelihood of  the deceased  committing suicide\t or  another
\nperson to have administered the poison to the deceased. This
\nCourt accordingly  acquitted the  accused by  extending\t the
\nbenefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
     If one  prefers to\t go  yet  further  back\t we  find  a
\ndecision of the Allahabad High Court which is exactly on the
\nprinciples laid down in Dharambir Singh case. In Mt. Gajrani
\nv. Emperor, A.I.R. 1933 All. 394 Benett, J. speaking for the
\nCourt observed (at p. 394):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In a case of murder by poison there are three
\n\t  main points to be proved: firstly, did the
\n\t  deceased die\tof the poison in question; secondly,
\n\t  had the  accused got the poison in question in his
\n\t  or her possession; and thirdly, had the accused an
\n\t  opportunity to administer the poison in question
\n\t  to the deceased. If these three points are proved,
\n\t  a presumption may under certain circumstances be
\n\t  drawn by the Court that the accused did administer
\n\t  poison to  the deceased and did cause the death of
\n\t  the deceased. It is not usual that reliable direct
\n\t  evidence is available to prove that the accused
\n\t  did actually administer poison to the deceased.
\n\t  The evidence of motive which is frequently given
\n\t  in these cases is of subsidiary importance, and
\n\t  the mere fact that the accused had a motive to
\n\t  cause the death of the deceased is not a fact
\n\t  which will dispense with the proof of the second
\n\t  and third points that the accused had the poison
\n\t  in his or her possession, and that the accused had
\n\t  an opportunity to administer the poison.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The above proposition found its way into Mohan v. State
\nof Uttar  Pradesh, A.I.R.<\/a>  1960 S.C.  669 and  Ram Gopal  v.
\nState of Maharashtra, A.I.R.<\/a> 1972 S.C. 656. In Mohan’s case,
\nthe death  in question\twas by\tarsenic poisoning.  In\tthat
\ncase, the  prosecution was  able to  prove that\t the accused
\ngave ‘peras’ to the victim as ‘pershad’ and the victim
\n419<\/span>
\ndied  after   eating  the   ‘pershad’.\t‘Pershad’  contained
\narsenic. There was thus direct evidence as to the possession
\nof the\tpoison with  the accused. This Court, therefore, had
\nno difficulty to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded
\nto the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Ram Gopal’s case was concerned with homicidal action by
\nadministering a compound called “kerosene and orango choloro
\ncompound”. The High Court, relying upon the motive and other
\ncircumstantial\tevidence   convicted  the  accused  for\t the
\noffence of  murder although  there was\tno evidence that the
\naccused was  in possession  of poison.\tThis Court could not
\nagree with the view taken by the High Court. The analysis of
\nthe evidence  produced by  the prosecution revealed that the
\nmotive\talleged\t  against  the\t accused   was\t not   fully
\nestablished.  The   incriminating  circumstantial   evidence
\nagainst the  accused was  also found  to be insufficient. So
\nthe  conviction\t of  the  accused  was\tset  aside  and\t the
\nacquittal was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
     Sharda E. Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, [1985] 1
\nSCR 88 A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622 is yet another case of death by
\ncyanide poisoning  for which the husband of the deceased was
\ntried for  murder. There was no direct evidence to establish
\nthat the  accused was in possession of that poison. The High
\nCourt, however,\t relied upon the circumstantial evidence and
\nconvicted the  accused.\t In  the  appeal  preferred  by\t the
\naccused, this  Court did not agree with the reasoning of the
\nHigh Court.  After referring to Ram Gopal’s case. Fazal Ali,
\nJ., focussed  the attention  on the  following four factors:
\nThe learned Judge observed (at p.167):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “So far as this matter is concerned, in such cases
\n\t  the court must carefully scan the evidence and
\n\t  determine the four important circumstances which
\n\t  alone can justify a conviction:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) there is a clear motive for an accused to
\n\t  administer poison to the deceased,
\n\t  (2) that  the deceased died of poison said to have
\n\t  been administered,
\n\t  (3) that the accused had the poison in his
\n\t  possession,
\n\t  (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the
\n\t  poison to the deceased.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
420<\/span><\/p>\n
The learned Judge went on to state:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In the instant case, while two ingredients have
\n\t  been proved  but two have not. In the first place,
\n\t  it has no doubt been proved that Manju died of
\n\t  potassium cyanide and secondly, it has also been
\n\t  proved that there was an opportunity to administer
\n\t  the poison. It has, however, not been proved by
\n\t  any evidence\tthat the appellant had the poison in
\n\t  his possession. On the other hand, as indicated
\n\t  above, there is clear evidence of PW 2 that
\n\t  potassium cyanide could have been available to
\n\t  Manju from  the plastic factory of her mother, but
\n\t  there is no evidence to show that the accused
\n\t  could have procured potassium cyanide from any
\n\t  available source. We might here extract a most
\n\t  unintelligible and extra-ordinary finding of the
\n\t  High Court:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “It is true that there is no direct evidence on
\n\t  these two points, because the prosecution is not
\n\t  able to lead evidence that the accused had secured
\n\t  potassium cyanide poison from a particular source.
\n\t  Similarly there is no direct evidence to prove
\n\t  that he had administered poison to Manju. However,
\n\t  it is not necessary to prove each and every fact
\n\t  by a\tdirect evidence. Circumstantial evidence can
\n\t  be a basis for proving this fact.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  The comment by the high Court appears to be
\n\t  frightfully vague and absolutely unintelligible.
\n\t  While holding\t in the clearest possible terms that
\n\t  there is no evidence in this case to show that the
\n\t  appellant was in possession of poison, the High
\n\t  Court observes  that this fact may prove either by
\n\t  direct or  indirect (circumstantial) evidence. But
\n\t  it fails to indicate the nature of the
\n\t  circumstantial or indirect evidence to show that
\n\t  the appellant\t was in possession of poison. If the
\n\t  Court seems to suggest that merely because the
\n\t  appellant had the opportunity to administer poison
\n\t  had the same was found in the body of the
\n\t  deceased, it should be presumed that the appellant
\n\t  was in possession of poison, then it has committed
\n\t  a serious and gross error of law and has blatantly
\n\t  violated the principles laid down by this Court.
\n\t  The High Court has not indicated as to what was
\n\t  the basis for coming to a finding that the accused
\n\t  could have procured the cyanide. On the other
\n\t  hand, in view of the
\n421<\/span>
\n\t  decision in  Ram Gopal’s  case  failure  to  prove
\n\t  possession of\t the cyanide poison with the accused
\n\t  by  itself   would  result   in  failure   of\t the
\n\t  prosecution to prove its case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court then went into the merits of the prosecution
\ncase. It  was observed\tthat the  deceased was\tof sensitive
\nmind. She had occasionally suffered mental depression due to
\nher inability  to adjust herself to her husband’s family. It
\nwas also observed that the deceased had access to the poison
\nin question.  She could\t have secured  the poison  from\t the
\nfactory\t of   her  mother.   Considering  these\t  and  other
\ncircumstances, it  was held  “that it  might be\t a  case  of
\nsuicide or  murder and\tboth were  equally probable”. So the
\naccused was given the benefit of doubt and he was acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  foregoing cases,\t it will  be  seen  that  in
\npoison murder cases, the accused was not acquitted solely on
\nthe failure of the prosecution to establish one or the other
\nrequirement which  this Court  has laid\t down  in  Dharambir
\nSingh case.  We do  not also find any case where the accused
\nwas acquitted  solely on the ground that the prosecution has
\nfailed to  prove that  the accused  had the  poison  in\t his
\npossession. The\t accused in  all the  said cases  came to be
\nacquitted by  taking into  consideration the totality of the
\ncircumstances including insufficient motive, weakness in the
\nchain of  circumstantial  evidence  and\t likelihood  of\t the
\ndeceased committing suicide.\n<\/p>\n
     We do  not consider  that there  should be acquittal on
\nthe failure  of the  prosecution to  prove the possession of
\npoison with  the accused.  Murder by  poison  is  invariably
\ncommitted under\t the cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will
\nadminister poison  to another in the presence of others. The
\nperson who administers poison to another in secrecy will not
\nkeep a\tportion of  it for the investigating officer to come
\nand collect  it. The  person who  commits such\tmurder would
\nnaturally take\tcare to\t eliminate and\tdestroy the evidence
\nagainst him.  In such  cases, it would be impossible for the
\nprosecution to\tprove possession of poison with the accused.
\nThe prosecution\t may, however, establish other circumstances
\nconsistent only\t with the  hypothesis of  the guilt  of\t the
\naccused. The court then would not be justified in acquitting
\nthe accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
\nprove possession of the poison with the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     The poison\t murder cases  are not to be put outside the
\nrule of\t circumstantial evidence.  There may be obvious very
\nmany facts  and circumstances  out of which the Court may be
\njustified in drawing
\n422<\/span>
\npermissible inference  that the accused was in possession of
\nthe poison  in question.  There may  be very  many facts and
\ncircumstances proved  against the accused which may call for
\ntacit assumption  of the factum of possession of poison with
\nthe accused. The insistence on proof of possession of poison
\nwith  the  accused  invariably\tin  every  case\t is  neither
\ndesirable nor  practicable. It\twould mean  to introduce  an
\nextraneous ingredient to the offence of murder by poisoning.
\nWe cannot,  therefore, accept  the contention  urged by\t the
\nlearned counsel\t for the appellant. The accused in a case of
\nmurder by  poisoning cannot  have a  better chance  of being
\nexempted from  sanctions than  in other\t kinds\tof  murders.
\nMurder by  poisoning is\t run like any other murder. In cases
\nwhere dependence  is wholly  on circumstantial evidence, and
\ndirect\tevidence   not\tbeing\tavailable,  the\t  Court\t can
\nlegitimately draw from the circumstances an inference on any
\nmatter one way or the other.\n<\/p>\n
     The view  that we\thave taken  gets  support  from\t the
\ndecision of  this Court\t in Ananth  Chintaman Laguy  v.\t The
\nState of  Bombay, A.I.R.  1960 S.C.  500 where Hidayatullah,
\nJ.,  has   given  an  anxious  consideration  to  the  three
\npropositions laid  down in Dharambir Singh case. The learned
\nJudge did  not consider them as invariable criteria of proof
\nto be established by the prosecution in every case of murder
\nby poisoning. The learned Judge said (at p. 519-520):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  now necessary\t to consider  the  arguments
\n\t  which\t have\tbeen  advanced\t on  behalf  of\t the
\n\t  appellant.  The   first  contention  is  that\t the
\n\t  essential ingredients required to be proved in all
\n\t  cases of  murder by  poisoning were  not proved by
\n\t  the prosecution  in this  case. Reference  in this
\n\t  connection is\t made to a decision of the Allahabad
\n\t  High Court in Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor. AIR 1933 All
\n\t  394 and  to two unreported decisions of this Court
\n\t  in Chandrakant  N Nyalchand  Seth v.\tThe State of
\n\t  Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957 decided on
\n\t  February 19, 1958 and Dharambir Singh v. The State
\n\t  of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 1958, decided
\n\t  on 4.11.1958.\t In these  cases, the Court referred
\n\t  to three  propositions which\tthe prosecution must
\n\t  establish in\ta case\tof poisoning; (a) that death
\n\t  took place  by poisoning; (b) that the accused had
\n\t  the poison  in his  possession, and  (c) that\t the
\n\t  accused  had\tan  opportunity\t to  administer\t the
\n\t  poison to  the deceased. The case in Cr. A. No. 98<\/span>
\n\t  of 1958 D\/- 4.11.1958 (SC) turned upon these three
\n\t  propositions. There,\tthe deceased  had died\tas a
\n\t  result of  poisoning by  potassium cyanide,  which
\n\t  poison was also found in the
\n423<\/span>
\n\t  autopsy.  The\t  High\tCourt  had  disbelieved\t the
\n\t  evidence  which   sought  to\testablish  that\t the
\n\t  accused had  obtained potassium cyanide, but held,
\n\t  nevertheless that  the circumstantial evidence was
\n\t  sufficient to\t convict the  accused in  that case.
\n\t  This\tCourt,\t did  not,   however,\taccept\t the
\n\t  circumstantial evidence  as complete.\t It is to be
\n\t  observed that\t the three  propositions  were\tlaid
\n\t  down not  as the  invariable criteria\t of proof by
\n\t  direct evidence  in a case of murder by poisoning,
\n\t  because evidently  if after  poisoning the victim.
\n\t  the accused  destroyed all traces of the body, the
\n\t  first proposition  would  be\tincapable  of  being
\n\t  proved   except    by\t  circumstantial   evidence.
\n\t  Similarly, if\t the accused gave a victim something
\n\t  to eat  and the  victim died\timmediately  on\t the
\n\t  ingestion of\tthat food with symptoms of poisoning
\n\t  and poison, in fact, was found in the viscera, the
\n\t  requirement  of   proving  that  the\taccused\t was
\n\t  possessed of\tthe poison  would  follow  from\t the
\n\t  circumstances that  the accused  gave\t the  victim
\n\t  something  to\t eat  and  need\t not  be  separately
\n\t  proved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned Judge continued:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tcases  of  this\t Court\twhich  were  decided
\n\t  proceeded upon  their own  facts, and\t though\t the
\n\t  three propositions  must be  kept in\tmind always,
\n\t  the  sufficiency   of\t the   evidence,  direct  or
\n\t  circumstantial? to  establish murder\tby poisoning
\n\t  will depend  on the  facts of\t each case.  If\t the
\n\t  evidence in a particular case does not justify the
\n\t  inference that  death is  the result\tof poisoning
\n\t  because of the failure of the prosecution to prove
\n\t  the fact  satisfactorily, either  directly  or  by
\n\t  circumstantial evidence,  then the  benefit of the
\n\t  doubt will have to be given to the accused person.
\n\t  But if  circumstantial evidence, in the absence of
\n\t  direct proof of the three elements, is so decisive
\n\t  that the  Court can  unhesitatingly hold  that the
\n\t  death was  a result  of administration  of  poison
\n\t  (though not  detected) and  that the\tpoison\tmust
\n\t  have been administered by the accused person, then
\n\t  the conviction can be rested on it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So much  for  the\tprinciples  for\t which\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant fought for. On the facts there is
\nconcurrence of\topinion between\t the two  courts below. This
\nCourt seldom re-examines the findings of fact reached by the
\nHigh Court. We may, however, out of
\n424<\/span>
\ndeference to  the counsel briefly refer to the evidence. The
\nprosecution has\t established the  motive for the murder. The
\nproof of  motive goes  a long  way to tilt the scale against
\nthe  accused  which  provides  a  foundational\tmaterial  to
\nconnect the  chain of circumstances. The facts which hear on
\nmotive are  distressing. After\tthe marriage,  Gian Kaur was
\nsubjected to  repeated harassment  for\tnot  satisfying\t the
\ndemand for dowry made by Bhupinder Singh. Baltej Singh (PW2)
\nhas stated that Bhupinder Singh asked Gian Kaur to bring Rs.
\n10,000. The  parents of Bhupinder Singh were also parties to
\nthat demand.  Baltej Singh  with all  difficulties satisfied
\nthat demand  in part by payment of Rs.6,000. Bhupinder Singh
\nthereafter  demanded   a  motorcycle.\tWhen  that  was\t not
\nimmediately given  Bhupinder Singh  held out a threat to his
\nwife that  she would  be killed. This was conveyed to Baltej
\nSingh. Before he could take a decision in this regard he was
\nshocked to  receive the news of death of Gian Kaur. This has
\nbeen proved  by the  testimony of  Baltej Singh\t (PW 2)\t and
\nNazir Singh  (PW  3).  The  demand  for\t dowry\tfollowed  by
\nharassment to  the deceased  has  been\tthus  satisfactorily
\nproved.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of the  Doctor  and\tthe  report  of\t the
\nchemical examiner  has established  beyond doubt  that\tGian
\nKaur died of organo phosphorus compound poisoning. Bhupinder
\nSingh had  an opportunity  to administer  that poison. There
\nwas nobody  else in  the house.\t All the  inmates had  their
\ncommon food  in the  night. All\t of them  slept in  the same
\nplace. Both  the Courts have ruled out the theory of suicide
\nby Gian Kaur. We entirely agree with that finding. She could
\nnot have  thrown  her  child  to  the  mercy  of  others  by
\ncommitting suicide  and indeed no mother would venture to do
\nthat.  The  postmortem\treport\tgiving\tthe  description  of
\ninjuries found\ton the\tbody of the deceased would also defy
\nall doubts about the theory of suicide. She had contusion on
\nthe front  of right  leg. Abrasion  on the front of the left
\nleg just  below the  knee joint. Linear abrasion on the back
\nof the\tright hand.  Linear abrasion  on  the  antro-lateral
\naspect of  left fore-arm in its middle. And contusion on the
\nback of\t right elbow  joint. These  injuries, as  the Courts
\nbelow have  observed could  have been caused while Gian Kaur
\nresisted the poison being administered to her.\n<\/p>\n
     The behaviour  of Bhupinder Singh in the early hours of
\nthat fateful  day by  going to\this field  as if nothing had
\nhappened to  his wife  is apparently  inconsistent with\t the
\nnormal human  behaviour. There was no attempt made by him or
\nother inmates  of the  house to\t look out  for any Doctor to
\ngive medical  attention to  the\t victim.  The  movement\t and
\ndisposition  of\t Bhupinder  Singh  towards  the\t victim\t and
\nsituations
\n425<\/span>
\nare incompatible  with his  innocence. On  the contrary,  it
\ngives sustenance to his guilt.\n<\/p>\n
     The Courts\t below having considered all these facts and
\ncircumstances had  no difficulty  to convict the accused for
\nmurder and  we see  no good  reason to\tinterfere with\tthat
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n426<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1011, 1988 SCR (3) 409 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/04\/1988 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J) CITATION: 1988 AIR […]<\/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-36771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - 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\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T09:04:52+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T09:04:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\"},\"wordCount\":5453,\"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\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\",\"name\":\"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T09:04:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - 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\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T09:04:52+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988","datePublished":"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T09:04:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988"},"wordCount":5453,"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\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988","name":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T09:04:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhupinder-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-6-april-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1988"}]},{"@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\/36771","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=36771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}