{"id":58634,"date":"1996-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996"},"modified":"2017-12-16T02:01:45","modified_gmt":"2017-12-15T20:31:45","slug":"babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (4),    753\t  1996 SCALE  (4)1<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBABU SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nFAIZAN UDDIN (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (4)   753\t  1996 SCALE  (4)1\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nPATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appellant Babu  Singh along  with his  younger  brother<br \/>\nSadhu Singh  stood  charged  under  section  302  read\twith<br \/>\nsection 120-B  I.P.C. for  hatching a conspiracy at Calcutta<br \/>\nto kill\t their younger brother Jagrup Singh and killing said<br \/>\nJagrup Singh  in their own house in Village Tiranji Khera in<br \/>\nPunjab on  6.11.1981. The  learned Additional Sessions Judge<br \/>\non discussion  of the  evidence on  record came to hold that<br \/>\nthe prosecution\t has utterly  failed to establish the charge<br \/>\nunder section  120 B  of the Indian Penal Code.\t Accordingly<br \/>\nco-accused Sadhu Singh was acquitted. But on the evidence of<br \/>\nPW 14  who was\tthe servant of the deceased and who had come<br \/>\nfrom Calcutta  with  him  as  well  as\tother  corroborating<br \/>\nevidence convicted  the appellant  under section  302 I.P.C.<br \/>\nand sentenced  him to imprisonment for life. On appeal being<br \/>\ncarried by  the accused\t appellant the\tHigh Court of Punjab<br \/>\nand Haryana  maintained the  conviction and  sentence of the<br \/>\nappellant in  Criminal Appeal  No. 748-DB of 1982. Hence the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  case as  unfolded in the F.I.R. lodged<br \/>\nby Bant\t Singh. PW  5 father  of the  appellant is  that the<br \/>\ndeceased as  well as  two accused  persons were\t doing their<br \/>\nbusiness at  Calcutta and  there was  some  dispute  amongst<br \/>\nthem. In  December, 1981 deceased Jagrup Singh and appellant<br \/>\nBabu Singh  had come from Calcutta. On 6.12.1981 when Jagrup<br \/>\nSingh was  sleeping after  taking his  meal and\t father Bant<br \/>\nSingh was in the courtyard, appellant Babu Singh picked up a<br \/>\nTakua and  entered into\t the room  where  Jagrup  Singh\t was<br \/>\nsleeping and  dealt two to three blows on the head of Jagrup<br \/>\nSingh. Bant  Singh then\t raised an alarm which attracted his<br \/>\nwife Ram kaur (PW 6) and daughter-in-law Gurmeet Kaur to the<br \/>\nscene of  occurrence. The appellant, however, left the place<br \/>\nof occurrence  after inflicting\t blows on  Jagrup Singh\t and<br \/>\nJagrup Singh  succumbed to  the injuries  at the  spot. Bant<br \/>\nSingh then  informed the  Sarpanch, Gurbux  Singh, PW 16 who<br \/>\ncame to\t the place  of occurrence  and thereafter Bant Singh<br \/>\nleft for the Police Station along with Sarpanch and lodged a<br \/>\nreport at  11.15 P.M.  which was  recorded by  the Assistant<br \/>\nSub-Inspector of  Police, PW 18 and was treated as the First<br \/>\nInformation  Report,   Exhibit\tP-G\/1.\t The  said   PW\t  18<br \/>\nimmediately went  to the  spot, prepared the inquest report,<br \/>\nExhibit P-B,  sent the dead body for post-mortem examination<br \/>\nand recorded  the statements  of  some\tof  the\t prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses. The investigation of the case was taken over from<br \/>\nhim by\tthe Sub-Inspector  of Police, PW 24 on 8.12.1981 who<br \/>\nalso  recorded\t the  statements   of  several\t prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses and  then ultimately arrested appellant Babu Singh<br \/>\non 22.12.1981.\tOn completion  of investigation he submitted<br \/>\nthe charge  sheet and  on being\t committed  by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nAdditional Chief  Judicial Magistrate,\tSangrur, the accused<br \/>\npersons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.<br \/>\nSangrur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1982. Though prosecution<br \/>\nexamined  as   many  as\t 24  witnesses\tin  support  of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case,  PWs 5,  6 and  14 were supposed to be eye<br \/>\nwitnesses to  the occurrence.  PW 16  is the Sarpanch of the<br \/>\nVillage Panchayat.  Gurbux Singh,  PW  16  accompanied\tBant<br \/>\nSingh to  the Police Station for lodging of F.I.R. PW 23 was<br \/>\na member  of Punjab  Vidhan Sabha to whom Jai Narayan, PW 14<br \/>\nhad told  at 8.30  P.M. on  the date of occurrence about the<br \/>\nmurder of  Jagrup Singh\t and requested\thim  to\t inform\t the<br \/>\nfamily members\tof the deceased at Calcutta on telephone and<br \/>\nhe accordingly had rang up and told the same to Karan Singh,<br \/>\nPW 8. PWs 18 and 24 are the two investigating officers. PW 1<br \/>\nis the doctor who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body<br \/>\nof Jagrup  Singh. PWs  7  and 22 are the eye witnesses to an<br \/>\nalleged conspiracy  between Babu  Singh and  Sadhu Singh  at<br \/>\nCalcutta to  do away  with the\tdeceased Jagrup\t Singh.\t The<br \/>\nother prosecution  witnesses are  the formal  witnesses. The<br \/>\nlearned Additional  Sessions Judge on discussion of evidence<br \/>\nof PWs\t7 and  22 came\tto hold\t that they  are not reliable<br \/>\nwitnesses and  therefore he  concluded that the charge under<br \/>\nsection 120  B\tof  the\t Indian\t Penal\tCode  has  not\tbeen<br \/>\nestablished by\tthe prosecution.  Accordingly, accused Sadhu<br \/>\nSingh who  was only  charged under  sections 302\/120B I.P.C.<br \/>\nwas acquitted.\tBut  so\t far  as  appellant  Babu  Singh  is<br \/>\nconcerned the  learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon<br \/>\nthe evidence  of PW 14, PW 16 and PW 8 and came to hold that<br \/>\nthe charge  of murder  against appellant Babu Singh has been<br \/>\nproved beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly convicted him<br \/>\nunder section  302 I.P.C.  and sentenced him to imprisonment<br \/>\nfor life.  On appeal,  the  High  Court\t re-appreciated\t the<br \/>\nevidence and  affirmed the  conviction and  sentence of\t the<br \/>\nappellant. Hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Sushil\t Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor  the  appellant  raised  the  following  contentions  in<br \/>\nassailing the conviction of the appellant:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    The  prosecution case  being one of conspiracy between<br \/>\nthe two\t brothers at  Calcutta to  do away with the deceased<br \/>\nJagrup Singh  and in furtherance of the same conspiracy Babu<br \/>\nSingh appellant\t having said  to have assaulted the deceased<br \/>\nby means  of Takua  and the charge of conspiracy having been<br \/>\nnot established\t by the\t prosecution evidence, the charge of<br \/>\nmurder against appellant also must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The sole  star witness  Jai Narain, PW 14 though claims<br \/>\nto be  an eye witness to the occurrence but was actually not<br \/>\npresent at  the time of occurrence and has been subsequently<br \/>\nbrought in which is apparent from the fact that his name did<br \/>\nnot find  place to  be a witness to the occurrence either in<br \/>\nthe F.I.R.  or in  the statement made at the time of inquest<br \/>\nand as\tsuch no\t reliance should be made on the testimony of<br \/>\nPW 14.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   It is  difficult to  believe the  prosecution case that<br \/>\nwhile the  deceased and\t accused  persons  were\t staying  at<br \/>\nCalcutta, the  accused came  all the  way to  the village in<br \/>\nPunjab to  commit murder of his brother the deceased and the<br \/>\nentire story appears to be improbable.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The very fact that PW 14 though is said to be a witness<br \/>\nto the occurrence and yet was not examined on 6.12.1981 when<br \/>\nPW 18  rushed to  the spot  of\toccurrence  and\t infact\t was<br \/>\nexamined by PW 24 on 8.12.1981, no reliance should be placed<br \/>\non his testimony.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On examining  the evidence\t on record which were placed<br \/>\nbefore us  we do  not find  any\t  substance in\tany  of\t the<br \/>\nsubmissions made  by the  learned counsel for the appellant.<br \/>\nAt the\toutset it  may be  stated that\tthe father  PW 5 and<br \/>\nmother PW 6 did not support the prosecution during trial and<br \/>\ntherefore the  learned\tSessions  Judge\t had  permitted\t the<br \/>\nprosecution to\tconfront their statements made to the police<br \/>\nduring investigation  in accordance  with Section 154 of the<br \/>\nEvidence Act.  We would now examine the acceptability of the<br \/>\ncontentions raised  by Mr.  Sushil Kumar  appearing for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is undoubtedly true that though the prosecution case<br \/>\nas unfolded in the First Information Report had not made any<br \/>\ncase of\t conspiracy to\tmurder but after investigation while<br \/>\nfiling charge  sheet a\tcase of conspiracy had been made out<br \/>\nand accordingly the two accused stood charged and were tried<br \/>\nunder section  120 B I.P.C. The evidence on that score being<br \/>\nof PWs\t7 and 22, the learned Sessions Judge fully discussed<br \/>\nthe same  and held  them to  be unreliable. Consequently, it<br \/>\nwas held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge<br \/>\nof conspiracy.\tBut merely  because the charge of conspiracy<br \/>\nfailed, the  prosecution case  so far  as the actual assault<br \/>\nbeing given  by appellant  Babu Singh  cannot be  ipso facto<br \/>\nthrown away.  We find  no substance  in the  argument of Mr.<br \/>\nSushil Kumar that the entire prosecution case must fail once<br \/>\ncharge of  conspiracy is  not established.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\nfirst contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The 2nd  and 4th  contention are  in fact inter-linked,<br \/>\nrelating to  the acceptability of the evidence of PW 14. But<br \/>\nbefore examining  the evidence\tof said\t PW 14\tit would  be<br \/>\nappropriate to\tdeal with  the\t3rd  contention\t namely\t the<br \/>\nprobability  of\t the  prosecution  case.  According  to\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant, since  all the brothers<br \/>\nwere doing  business at\t Calcutta and they wanted to do away<br \/>\nwith the  deceased Jagrup  Singh, there would be no occasion<br \/>\nfor coming  all the  way to  the village  home of Punjab and<br \/>\ncommit\t murder in  their own  house which  they could\thave<br \/>\notherwise done\tin the\tcity of\t Calcutta.  That  there\t was<br \/>\ndispute amongst the brothers on account of business they are<br \/>\ncarrying has  been well\t proved by  the prosecution.  Merely<br \/>\nbecause the  accused persons could have committed the murder<br \/>\nof the\tbrother\t at  Calcutta  does  not  improbabalise\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case that in fact the deceased brother and other<br \/>\nbrother also  came to  Punjab to  commit the  murder. It  is<br \/>\ndifficult to  visualize what  operated in  the mind  of\t the<br \/>\naccused and  why he  chose to  come to\tPunjab to commit the<br \/>\nmurder of  the brother.\t In this  view\tof  the\t matter\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case  has to  be adjudged  on the  basis of\t the<br \/>\nevidence  laid\t and  not  by  entering\t into  an  arena  of<br \/>\nconjecture. We\taccordingly do not find any substance in the<br \/>\n3rd  contention\t raised\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Coming now\t to the\t 2nd and 4th contentions, it depends<br \/>\nupon the  assessment of\t evidence of  PW  14  the  sole\t eye<br \/>\nwitness to  the occurrence.  As has  been stated earlier the<br \/>\ntwo other witnesses who had been examined by the prosecution<br \/>\nare the\t father and  mother of\tthe accused  and who did not<br \/>\nsupport the  prosecution during\t trial, as a result of which<br \/>\nthey were  cross-examined  by  the  prosecution,  and  their<br \/>\nearlier statements  have been confronted. So far as PW 14 is<br \/>\nconcerned one  of the  arguments  advanced  by\tthe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for  the appellant is the fact that his name did not<br \/>\nfind place  in the  F.I.R. as  a witness  to the occurrence.<br \/>\nF.I.R. can  be used only for the purpose of corroborating or<br \/>\ncontradicting the  maker thereof. That apart, the F.I.R. was<br \/>\nlodged by the father who has stated to have seen the ghastly<br \/>\noccurrence, one son killed the other and at that juncture if<br \/>\nhe did\tnot mention  the name of Jai Narayan to be a witness<br \/>\nto the\toccurrence, the\t evidence of  Jai Narayan  cannot be<br \/>\ndoubted on  that score.\t It is\twell  settled  that  if\t the<br \/>\nwitness is  found to  be independent  and  reliable  and  is<br \/>\nbelieved to  be\t present  during  the  occurrence  then\t his<br \/>\nevidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that his name<br \/>\nhad not\t been mentioned in the F.l.R. Non-mention of name of<br \/>\na witness  may be an honest omission, inadvertent mistake or<br \/>\nmay be due to various other conceivable reasons. lt has been<br \/>\nheld by\t this Court  in the  case of Nirpal Singh and others<br \/>\nvs. State of Haryana. (1977) 2 SCC 131, that the name of the<br \/>\nwitness examined  on trial  not having\tbeen  given  in\t the<br \/>\nF.l.R. though  may be  of some relevance but by itself would<br \/>\nnot entail rejection of his evidence. On examining the First<br \/>\ninformation Report  we find that no mention has been made as<br \/>\nto who\tare the\t witnesses to the occurrence. That by itself<br \/>\ncannot be  the ground to discard the evidence of witness who<br \/>\nstated to  have witnessed  the occurrence  if  intrinsically<br \/>\nnothing has  been brought  out in  the cross-examination  to<br \/>\nimpeach his testimony. In the circumstances we are unable to<br \/>\npersuade ourselves  to agree  with  the\t submission  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant that  non-mention of the<br \/>\nname of\t Jai Narayan  in the F.l.R. is sufficient to impeach<br \/>\nhis veracity.  Mr. Sushil  Kumar  also\tin  this  connection<br \/>\nsubmitted that\teven while  conducting inquest over the dead<br \/>\nbody  of   the\tdeceased   the\tstatement  recorded  by\t the<br \/>\ninvestigating officer does not also indicate the name of Jai<br \/>\nNarayan. According to him the practice followed in Punjab is<br \/>\nthat while  filling up column 12 the brief facts of the case<br \/>\nare recorded  and that is what also has been recorded in the<br \/>\npresent case  and  said\t statement  does  not  indicate\t Jai<br \/>\nNarayan to  be a witness to the occurrence. On examining the<br \/>\ninquest report\twe find\t that what has been stated to be the<br \/>\nproved facts  is the  verbatim quoting of the F.I.R. by Bant<br \/>\nSingh and since in the F.l.R. name of Jai Narayan or name of<br \/>\nany witness  had not  been given  to be\t eye witness  to the<br \/>\noccurrence question  of inclusion of his name in the inquest<br \/>\nreport does  not arise. That apart, and statement so made to<br \/>\nthe investigating  officer while conducting inquest would be<br \/>\nhit by\tSection\t 162  of  the  Code  of\t Criminal  Procedure<br \/>\ninasmuch as  this would\t be a  Statement in  the  course  of<br \/>\ninvestigation.\tSuch  a\t statement  therefore  can  only  be<br \/>\nutilized  for\tcontradicting  the  witness  in\t the  manner<br \/>\nprovided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and for no other<br \/>\npurpose. This being the position of law, non-mention of name<br \/>\nof Jai\tNarayan in the so called inquest statement is hardly<br \/>\nrelevant impeaching the statement of Jai Narayan. Mr. Sushil<br \/>\nKumar then  contended that  the occurrence.  took  place  on<br \/>\n6.12.1981 and shortly after the occurrence the investigating<br \/>\nofficer PW  18 arrived\tat the\tscene of  occurrence but Jai<br \/>\nNarayan was examined only on 8.12.1981 and this delay in<br \/>\nexamination makes his statement vulnerable. On examining the<br \/>\nevidence of  PW 14  we find that when the Sarpanch PW 16 and<br \/>\nBant Singh  PW 5  left for  the Police\tStation to lodge the<br \/>\nreport, PW  14 went  to the MLA, Baldev Singh Mann, PW 23 to<br \/>\nrequest him to book a trunk call to Calcutta and to intimate<br \/>\nthe family  of deceased Jagrup Singh. He further stated that<br \/>\non his\trequest PW  23 contacted Karan Singh, PW 8, a friend<br \/>\nof Jagrup  Singh and  intimated about  the death  of  Jagrup<br \/>\nSingh to  be conveyed to his family members. According to PW<br \/>\n14 after  the telephone call to Calcutta matured, he went to<br \/>\nthe bus\t stand at Sangrur and then left for Patiala and from<br \/>\nPatiala he  went to  the village  Main to  meet Jagrup Singh<br \/>\nwife&#8217;s brother. He informed about the murder of Jagrup Singh<br \/>\nto his\tbrother-in-law at 8 P.M. and thereafter he came back<br \/>\nto village  Tiranji Khera on the next morning and the police<br \/>\ninterrogated him  at about 11 A.M. This has been brought out<br \/>\nin  the\t cross-examination  of\tthis  witness  which  offers<br \/>\nsufficient explanation\tfor the\t non-examination of PW 14 on<br \/>\n6.12.1981, and\this examination on 8.12.1981. We, therefore,<br \/>\nsee no\tinfirmity with\tthe so called delayed examination of<br \/>\nPW 14 nor are we in a position to doubt his evidence on that<br \/>\nscore. PW  23 the  local MLA  had clearly  indicated that on<br \/>\n6.12.1981 at  about 8.30  P.M. Jai  Narayan came  to him and<br \/>\ntold about  the murder\tof Jagrup Singh and requested him to<br \/>\nintimate the  fact to  the family members of Jagrup Singh at<br \/>\nCalcutta. Though  he has  been elicited\t in the said  cross-<br \/>\nexamination  to\t  impeach  the\t testimony.   His   evidence<br \/>\nunequivocally establishes the presence of Jai Narayan in the<br \/>\nvillage\t on  the  fateful  day\tand  also  corroborates\t the<br \/>\nevidence of  Jai Narayan as a contemporaneous statement made<br \/>\nto PW 23 and it demolishes the main plank of the argument of<br \/>\nMr. Sushil  Kumar that Jai Narayan was not at all present in<br \/>\nthe village  and  has  been  subsequently  introduced.\tThat<br \/>\napart, though Bant Singh the father of the accused appellant<br \/>\n(PW 5)\tdid not support the prosecution during trial and was<br \/>\naccordingly  cross-examined   by  the  prosecution  but\t his<br \/>\nstatement  to\tPW  16,\t  Sarpanch  immediately\t  after\t the<br \/>\noccurrence to  the effect  that Babu Singh, appellant killed<br \/>\nJagrup Singh  has been\ttestified  by  PW  16.\tPW  8  fully<br \/>\ncorroborates PW-23  to the  effect that\t said Shri Man, told<br \/>\nhim on\ttelephone that\tBabu has  murdered Jagrup Singh. The<br \/>\ncomment of  the learned\t counsel for the appellant so far as<br \/>\nPW 8  is concerned  is omission\t in his earlier statement to<br \/>\nthe police under Section 161 Crl.P.C. about not telling that<br \/>\nJai Narayan  the servant  of Jagrup  Singh was standing with<br \/>\nhim which  he had  stated in  his evidence  in court. In our<br \/>\nconsidered opinion  the said omission cannot be held to be a<br \/>\nmaterial omission  amounting to contradiction in relation to<br \/>\nthe substratum\tof the prosecution case so as to discard the<br \/>\nevidence. We  have carefully  scrutinized the evidence of PW<br \/>\n14 who\thas given  a detailed  narration of  facts as to how<br \/>\nappellant Babu\tSingh caused  injury to\t Jagrup\t Singh\twith<br \/>\nTakua and  the blows  were being  given on  the head  of the<br \/>\ndeceased. Though  he has been cross-examined at great length<br \/>\nbut nothing  has been  elicited in  the cross-examination to<br \/>\ncreate any  doubt about\t the veracity  of PW  14.  The\tsaid<br \/>\nevidence of PW 14 is corroborated by the medical evidence of<br \/>\nPW 14,\tThe said  evidence of  PW 14  is corroborated by the<br \/>\nmedical evidence  of PW 1, the\tdoctor who had conducted the<br \/>\npost-mortem examination\t on the dead body cf the deceased so<br \/>\nfar as the specific part of the body on which the Babu Singh<br \/>\nassaulted, the\tweapon of  assault Babu\t Singh used  and the<br \/>\nnature of injury thereby caused on the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Tn the  aforesaid premises\t we entirely  agree with the<br \/>\nconclusion of  the learned  Sessions Judge  affirmed by\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court  that the  prosecution established  the charge of<br \/>\nmurder against\tappellant Babu Singh beyond reasonable doubt<br \/>\nand the said conviction and sentence passed against him does<br \/>\nnot require  any interference  by this Court. This appeal is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed.\tThe bail bond of the appellant stand<br \/>\ncancelled and  he is  directed to  surrender to\t receive the<br \/>\nbalance period\tof sentence  and if  he fails  to  surrender<br \/>\nappropriate steps may be taken for his apprehension.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (4), 753 1996 SCALE (4)1 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: BABU SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J) CITATION: JT [&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-58634","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>Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 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\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-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=\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-15T20:31:45+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-15T20:31:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2982,\"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\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\",\"name\":\"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-15T20:31:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 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":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 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\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-15T20:31:45+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-15T20:31:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996"},"wordCount":2982,"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\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996","name":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-15T20:31:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 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\/58634","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=58634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}