{"id":39214,"date":"1996-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996"},"modified":"2019-03-05T02:27:20","modified_gmt":"2019-03-04T20:57:20","slug":"pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Kurdukar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.K.Mukherjee, S.P.Kurdukar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPRITAM SINGH ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nM.K.MUKHERJEE, S.P.KURDUKAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tTHE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996<br \/>\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee<br \/>\n\t  Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdurkar<br \/>\nU.R. Lalit,  Sr.Adv., Rajiv  K.Garg, Ajay  Bansal, (Ms. Indu<br \/>\nSharma) (NP)  N.D.Garg, S.B.  Upadhyay, Laxmi  Raman  Singh,<br \/>\n(H.M. Singh,)  Adv. for\t R.S. Suri,  Advs. with\t him for the<br \/>\nappearing parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nThe following judgment of the Court was delivered:<br \/>\nPritam Singh<br \/>\nV.\n<\/p>\n<p>State of Punjab<br \/>\n\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 of 1988<br \/>\nBalbir Singh<br \/>\nV.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nachhatar Singh &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.P. KURDUKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Criminal appeal  No.  157\tof  1985  is  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant-original accused no. 1 under section 14 (1) of the<br \/>\nTerrorist Affected  Areas (Special  Courts) Act, Against the<br \/>\njudgment and  order dated  9th January,\t 1985 passed  by the<br \/>\nlearned Judge,\tSpecial Court,\tFerozepur in  case No. 36 of<br \/>\n1984. The  learned Special  Judge found the appellant guilty<br \/>\nof committing  the murder  of  Naib  Singh  and\t accordingly<br \/>\nsentenced him  to suffer imprisonment for life under Section<br \/>\n302 of\tthe Indian  Penal Code\tand also  sentenced  him  to<br \/>\nsuffer rigorous\t imprisonment for nine months for an offence<br \/>\npunishable under  Section 324  of the  Indian Penal Code for<br \/>\ncausing simple hurt to Balvinder Singh (PW 5).\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Criminal  Appeal NO 63 of 1988 is filed by Balbir Singh &#8211;<br \/>\nthe complainant\t against the  very same judgment challenging<br \/>\nthe acquittal  of Nachhatar  Singh and\tSukhpal Singh  under<br \/>\nSection 302\/34\tof the\tIndian Penal  Code. Since both these<br \/>\nappeals arise  out of  the common  judgment, they  are being<br \/>\ndisposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The appellant  is brother\tof Nachhatar Singh (A-2) and<br \/>\nSukhpal Singh  is son  of the appellant (A-3). They were put<br \/>\nup for\ttrial for  committing the  murder of  Naib Singh and<br \/>\ncausing grievous  injuries  to\tthe  prosecution  witnesses.<br \/>\nSukhpal Singh was convicted by the Trial Court under Section<br \/>\n323 of\tthe  Indian  Penal  Code  but  Nachhatar  singh\t was<br \/>\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   It is  also not  in  dispute  that\t Naib  Singh  (since<br \/>\ndeceased )  was the  first cousin  of appellant. On February<br \/>\n14,  1984,  in\tthe  morning  hours,  Balbir  Singh  (PW  4)<br \/>\nalongwith his  son Naib\t Singh was going to the fields. When<br \/>\nthey reached  the point from where the passage bifurcates to<br \/>\nthe field of Pritam Singh, Pritam Singh, Nachhatar Singh and<br \/>\nSukhpal singh  (A-1 to\tA-3) who  were armed  with gandasas,<br \/>\ncame there  and raised a lalkara that Balbir Singh (PW 4) be<br \/>\nnot spared.  The appellant  immediately\t attacked  and\tgave<br \/>\ngandasa blow on the head of Naib Singh. Naib Singh sustained<br \/>\na bleeding  injury and\tfell down.  The\t other\ttwo  accused<br \/>\ncaused injuries\t to Balbir  singh (PW 4) with the gandasas..<br \/>\nBalvinder Singh\t (PW 5)\t on hearing  the alarm\treached\t the<br \/>\nplace of  occurrence. The appellant gave gandasa blow on his<br \/>\nhead also.  Nachhatar Singh  (A-2) gave two gandasa blows to<br \/>\nBalvinder Singh\t (PW 5) from the blunt side. Balvinder Singh<br \/>\n(PW 5)\tat the\trelevant time was having kasauli and in self<br \/>\ndefence used  the same\tcausing injuries to Pritam Singh-the<br \/>\nappellant and  Nachhatar  Singh\t (A-2).\t This  incident\t was<br \/>\nwitnessed by   Thana  Singh (PW\t 6). Thana  Singh (PW 4) and<br \/>\nBalvinder Singh\t (PW 5) to the Civil Hospital at Gidderbaha.<br \/>\nDr. N.G. Garg (PW 2) declared Naib Singh dead. Dr. N.C. Garg<br \/>\n(PW 2)\texamined Balbir\t Singh (PW  4) and issued the injury<br \/>\ncertificate. Dr.  N.C. Garg  (PW 2)  also examined Balvinder<br \/>\nSingh (PW 5) and found two injuries on his person. Paras Ram<br \/>\n(PW 8) Station House Officer, Police Station, Gidderbaha, On<br \/>\nreceipt of the Information went to the Hospital and recorded<br \/>\nthe statement  of injured Balbir Singh (Ex. P12) and treated<br \/>\nthe same  as formal  P.I.R. The\t crime came to be registered<br \/>\nagainst three  persons under  Sections 302, 323 and 324 read<br \/>\nwith Section  34 of  the Indian Penal Code. After completing<br \/>\nthe necessary  investigation, the  accused were\t put up\t for<br \/>\ntrial for the aforesaid offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Nachhatar Singh  (A-2) had also sustained injuries went<br \/>\nto the Civil Hospital. Gidderbaha for medical treatment. His<br \/>\nstatement was  also recorded by Paras Ram (PW 8) SHO, Police<br \/>\nStation, Gidderbaha.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The defence  of the  accused  is  that  they  have\t not<br \/>\ncommitted any  offence\tand  pleaded  that  the\t members  of<br \/>\ncomplaint partly  were aggressors and infact Balvinder Singh<br \/>\n(PW 5)\twho was\t armed with  kasauli  assaulted\t and  caused<br \/>\ninjuries to Pritam Singh (A-1) and Nachhatar Singh (A-2). In<br \/>\nexercise  of  their  right  of\tprivate\t defence  they\twere<br \/>\ncompelled to  retaliate the  assault. They have committed no<br \/>\noffence. They are innocent and they be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The prosecution  in support  of its case examined eight<br \/>\nwitnesses. Balbir  Singh (PW  4) and  Balvinder Singh (PW 5)<br \/>\nare the\t eye witnesses.\t PW2 is\t Dr. N.C. Garg who performed<br \/>\nthe autopsy  on the dead body of Naib Singh  and also issued<br \/>\ninjury certificates to the injured prosecution witnesses and<br \/>\nto Nachhatar Singh (A-2).\n<\/p>\n<p>     The learned  Trial Judge after considering the evidence<br \/>\nled by\tthe prosecution\t and the  defence taken\t up  by\t the<br \/>\naccused held the appellant guilty of an offence of murder of<br \/>\nNaib Singh  punishable under  Section 302  IPC and sentenced<br \/>\nhim to\tsuffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also<br \/>\nfound guilty  of an  offence punishable under Section 324 of<br \/>\nthe Indian  Penal Code\tfor causing simple hurt to Balvinder<br \/>\nSingh and  sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for<br \/>\nnine months, It may be stated that we are not concerned with<br \/>\nthe other two accused in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Mr.  U.R.\tLalit,\tthe  learned  counsel  appearing  in<br \/>\nsupport of  this appeal\t urged that  the evidence  of Balbir<br \/>\nSingh  (PW   4)\t and  Balvinder\t singh\t(PW  5)\t is  totally<br \/>\nunreliable being  close relations  of deceased\tNaib  Singh.<br \/>\nBoth these  witnesses had suppressed the true facts from the<br \/>\nCourt relating\tto the\tincident. He  then urged that infact<br \/>\nthe members of the complainant party were the aggressors and<br \/>\ninitially they\topened up the assault on Nachhatar singh who<br \/>\nhad sustained  as many\tas seven  injuries out\tof which two<br \/>\nwere incised  wounds and  one was  lecerated wound.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel urged  that the\t trial court has totally misread the<br \/>\nevidence of  Balbir Singh  (PW 4) and Balvinder Singh (PW 5)<br \/>\nand  wrongly  convicted\t the  appellant\t for  the  aforesaid<br \/>\noffences.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Mr. H.M. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the State<br \/>\nof Punjab supported the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  At the  outset, it\t may be\t stated\t that  there  is  no<br \/>\nserious challenge  before us to the fact that Naib Singh met<br \/>\nwith a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  The next  question that  falls for our consideration is<br \/>\nas to  which party  was the  aggressor and whether appellant<br \/>\nand his associate had any right of private defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  story mainly  rests on the evidence of<br \/>\nBalbir Singh  (PW 4)  and Balvinder Singh (PW 5) who claimed<br \/>\nto be  the eye witnesses. Balbir Singh is the father of Naib<br \/>\nSingh (since deceased). Balvinder Singh (PW 5) is the son of<br \/>\nPW4. P.W.4  has stated\tthat field of appellant is adjoining<br \/>\nto their  field. On February 14, 1984 at about 10.15 a.m.,he<br \/>\nalongwith his son Naib Singh were going to the fields and at<br \/>\nthe relevant  time A-1 to A-3 were in their field. When they<br \/>\nreached the  spot which\t bifurcates the passage, on going to<br \/>\nthe field  of  appellant  and  other  going  to\t his  field,<br \/>\nsuddenly, the appellant Nachhatar Singh (A-2), Sukhpal Singh<br \/>\n(A-3) came  to that  junction, they were armed with gandasas<br \/>\nand said  that he  (PW 4) would not be spared. the appellant<br \/>\nthereafter opened  the attack  and gave gandasa blows on the<br \/>\nhead of\t Naib Singh. Nachhatar Singh (A-2) and Sukhpal Singh<br \/>\n(A-3) gave  gandasa blows  on his  head by  the blunt  side.<br \/>\nSukhpal Singh (A-3) again tried to gave gandasa blow to him,<br \/>\nhowever, he  warded off\t the same but sustained an injury on<br \/>\nhis left  arm. He then fell down. nachhatar singh (A-2) gave<br \/>\ntwo more  blows with  gandasa on  his head.  He then gave an<br \/>\nalarm and  thereafter his  son Balvinder  Singh (PW  5) came<br \/>\nthere. The  appellant suddenly\tgave the gandasa blow on the<br \/>\nhead of\t Balvinder Singh  (PW 5). Other accused persons also<br \/>\nassaulted Balvinder  Singh   (PW 5 ) then wielded kasauli in<br \/>\nhis self  defence and  in that\tprocess Nachhatar  Singh had<br \/>\nsustained injuries.  When again\t an  alarm  was\t given,\t the<br \/>\naccused fled  away. Balbir  Singh (PW  4)  has\tbeen  cross-<br \/>\nexamined at  great length  but, however, he stood firmly and<br \/>\nasserted that  initially the  appellant and  his  associates<br \/>\nopened up the assault and the appellant first gave a gandasa<br \/>\nblow on\t the head  of Naib  Singh. He  also further asserted<br \/>\nthat the  appellant and\t other accused\tassaulted him (PW 4)<br \/>\nand Balwinder Singh (PW 5).\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t  The  evidence of  Balvinder Singh (PW 5) is almost<br \/>\nidentical in material particulars and he stated that when he<br \/>\nheard the  alarm given by his father Balbir Singh (PW 4), he<br \/>\ncome to\t the spot  and noticed\tthat the appellant and other<br \/>\naccused were  assaulting his  father Balbir Singh (PW 4) and<br \/>\nNaib Singh.  He was  also assaulted by Nachhatar Singh (A-2)<br \/>\nand other  accused persons.  Apprehending danger to his life<br \/>\nand his\t father and brother, in self defence, he wielded the<br \/>\nkasauli in which Nachhatar had sustained the injuries. There<br \/>\nis nothing  in the  cross-examination which would make us to<br \/>\ndisbelieve the evidence of these two eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t Mr.  U.R. Lalit, however, urged that there is total<br \/>\nartificiality in  the evidence\tof Balbir  Singh (PW  4) and<br \/>\nBalvinder Singh (PW 5) when they tried to split the incident<br \/>\ninto  two   parts.  According  to  learned  counsel,  infact<br \/>\ncomplainant party  was the  aggressor and they had assaulted<br \/>\nthe appellant  and Nachhatar  Singh and\t caused incised\t and<br \/>\nlacerated injuries  to them.  In support of this submission,<br \/>\nhe  drew   out\tattention  to  the  injury  certificates  of<br \/>\nNachhater Singh\t (A-2). It  is true that Nachhatar Singh had<br \/>\nsustained two  incised and one lacerated wound but, however,<br \/>\nhaving regard  to the  evidence of  Balbir Singh  (PW 4) and<br \/>\nBalvinder Singh\t (PW 5)\t which\tis  totally  free  from\t any<br \/>\ncontradiction\/omission, it  is difficult  to accept that the<br \/>\ncomplainant party  was the  aggressor. Once  the evidence of<br \/>\nBalbir Singh (PW 4) Balvinder Singh (PW 5) is accepted being<br \/>\ntruthful as  regards the  initial start\t of assault  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant and  his  associates,\t it  must  follow  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant and  his associates  were the\t aggressors and when<br \/>\nthey were  assaulting Naib  Singh, Balbir  Singh (PW  4) and<br \/>\nBalvinder  Singh   (PW\t5)  with  the  deadly  weapons\tlike<br \/>\ngandasas, Balvinder  Singh (PW\t5) was\ttotally justified in<br \/>\nretaliating the\t attack in  self defence.  It may  be stated<br \/>\nthat even  in the  First Information  Report lodged  by\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant, the injuries sustained by Nachhatar Singh (A-2)<br \/>\nwere also  mentioned. During  the trial,  PW 4 and PW 5 also<br \/>\nexplained the injuries sustained by the appellant as well as<br \/>\nNachhatar Singh (A-2).\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  After careful  consideration of the evidence on record,<br \/>\nwe are\tsatisfied that the impugned judgment suffers from no<br \/>\nerror of law or fact and does not call for any interference.<br \/>\nAppeal to  stand dismissed.  Appellant, who  is on  bail, to<br \/>\nsurrender  to\this  baibond  forthwith\t to  serve  out\t the<br \/>\nremainder of his sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\t  Coming to the criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1988 field<br \/>\nby the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that no<br \/>\ninterference is\t called\t for.  Accordingly,  the  appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 Author: S Kurdukar Bench: M.K.Mukherjee, S.P.Kurdukar PETITIONER: PRITAM SINGH ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/08\/1996 BENCH: M.K.MUKHERJEE, S.P.KURDUKAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-04T20:57:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T20:57:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1860,\"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\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\",\"name\":\"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-04T20:57:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-04T20:57:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T20:57:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996"},"wordCount":1860,"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\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996","name":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-04T20:57:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-etc-on-20-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pritam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 20 August, 1996"}]},{"@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\/39214","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=39214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}