{"id":59061,"date":"2011-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-12T05:09:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-11T23:39:51","slug":"state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n<pre>*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                     Date of Decision: 7th July, 2011\n\n+                           CRL.A.136\/1999\n\n          STATE                                     ..... Appellant\n                        Through:   Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel\n                                   (Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar,\n                                   Advocate\n\n                                   versus\n\n          DEWAN SINGH                              ..... Respondent\n                   Through:        Ms.Savita Rao, Amicus Curiae\n\n          CORAM:\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.               The appeal has reached for hearing today and since<br \/>\nnone appears for the respondent, we had appointed Ms.Savita<br \/>\nRao, Advocate who is present in Court today as the Amicus<br \/>\nCuriae and since the paper book consists of only 30 pages, 12<br \/>\nout of which are the deposition of witnesses recorded at the trial<br \/>\nand 7 are the exhibited documents, we had handed over the<br \/>\npaper book to learned Amicus Curiae in the forenoon with a<br \/>\nrequest that if learned counsel could prepare herself, arguments<br \/>\ncould be heard in the post-lunch session.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.               Fee of learned counsel is fixed at `5,500\/-, to be paid<br \/>\nby the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">    Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                              Page 1 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 3.            At the post-lunch session, learned Amicus Curiae has<br \/>\nexpressed her readiness with the matter and hence we heard<br \/>\narguments.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.            Charged with the offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n307 IPC relating to the injuries suffered by Sunil Kumar PW-2,<br \/>\nvide impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.1998, the<br \/>\nrespondent has been acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.            It is settled law that pertaining to an order of<br \/>\nacquittal, if the Appellate Court finds that the view taken by the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge is a plausible view, merely because another<br \/>\nview is equally possible would not be a grant to interfere with an<br \/>\norder of acquittal. Only if it is found that material evidence or<br \/>\ncircumstance has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge or it is<br \/>\nfound that a wrong principle of law has been applied to draw<br \/>\ninferences or if it is found that irrelevant material or irrelevant<br \/>\ncircumstances have been considered by the learned Trial Judge,<br \/>\nalone then can the Appellate Court interfere.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.            A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal<br \/>\nthat the reasons for acquittal are penned by the learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge in paras 12 to 15 of the impugned decision, and we note<br \/>\nthe same:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;The prosecution examined injured (PW-2) and his<br \/>\n       father (PW-3) as an eye witnesses of the occurrence.<br \/>\n       From the perusal of the statement of PW-3, his<br \/>\n       presence at the spot is highly doubtful. According to<br \/>\n       him, accused came to his house at about 6 or 6:30 PM<br \/>\n       alongwith 5\/6 persons and started quarrelling with his<br \/>\n       son PW-2 who was present in his house and he was<br \/>\n       called outside the house and gave 5\/6 knife blow. The<br \/>\n       further stated that he took the injured to the hospital.<br \/>\n       His testimony is not corroborated by PW-2. There are<br \/>\n       material contradictions in the statement of these two<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                         Page 2 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n       witnesses. In t he first instance according to PW-3,<br \/>\n      incident took place at about 6 or 6:30 PM; whereas<br \/>\n      according to the injured, it took place at about 8:00<br \/>\n      PM; whereas according to the prosecution, the incident<br \/>\n      took place at about 7:00 PM as per Rukka Ex.PW-6\/A.<br \/>\n      According to PW-2, accused gave one churi blow on<br \/>\n      his stomach; whereas according to PW-3, accused<br \/>\n      gave 5\/6 knife blows to PW-2. He has nowhere stated<br \/>\n      that PW-3 was present at the spot. According to him,<br \/>\n      his mother took him to the hospital. I, think, if PW-3<br \/>\n      had present at the spot, he would have definitely<br \/>\n      taken the injured to the hospital instead of the mother<br \/>\n      of the injured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      13. According to PW-2, he returned from his job<br \/>\n      normally between 8:00 P.M to 9:00 P.M.; whereas<br \/>\n      according to PW-3, on the day of the incident PW-2<br \/>\n      returned to the house at about 5 or 6 PM. It does not<br \/>\n      stand to reason when PW-2 himself admitted that he<br \/>\n      returned from the job between 8 PM to 9 PM as to how<br \/>\n      he could be in the house on the day of the alleged<br \/>\n      incident at about 5 or 6 PM. Further, according to PW-<br \/>\n      2, the quarrel took place for about 10\/15 minutes;<br \/>\n      whereas according to PW-3, it took about one hour.<br \/>\n      According to PW-2, the police met him the hospital at<br \/>\n      about 2 or 3 A.M. and recorded his statement:<br \/>\n      whereas according to PW-3, police came in the<br \/>\n      hospital at about 8:30 PM and recorded the statement<br \/>\n      of his injured son when he was in semi-conscious<br \/>\n      condition.     PW-2 further stated in his cross<br \/>\n      examination that his statement was recorded by the<br \/>\n      police after 15 days of the incident at his house;<br \/>\n      whereas his statement Ex.PW-2\/A was recorded by the<br \/>\n      I.O. on 3.2.97. This creates a doubt as to whether the<br \/>\n      I.O. has manipulated his statement or the injured had<br \/>\n      with-held the true facts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      14. According to PW-2, he was called in the street by<br \/>\n      the accused which was not a thorough fare and it was<br \/>\n      dark in the street where he was given knife blow. On<br \/>\n      the other hand, PW-3 has stated that there were about<br \/>\n      30\/40 persons present in the street when the accused<br \/>\n      gave knife blow to PW-2. It does not stand to reason<br \/>\n      when so many persons were present in the street, as<br \/>\n      to how the accused could give knife blow to the<br \/>\n      injured in their presence, particularly when there was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                        Page 3 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n        a dark in the street. It is also admitted that accused<br \/>\n       was not alone and it creates a doubt as to which of the<br \/>\n       person with the accused had caused injury.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       15. The perusal of the statement of PW-6 also<br \/>\n       creates doubt regarding the investigation conducted<br \/>\n       by him at the spot. According to him, he reached the<br \/>\n       spot at about 8 PM when injured was removed to the<br \/>\n       hospital at about 8:15 PM by him. Whereas, according<br \/>\n       to injured PW-2, incident had taken place at about 8<br \/>\n       PM. He further admitted that when he reached the<br \/>\n       hospital, none of the eye witness was present except<br \/>\n       the father Pw-3 of the injured. It means and includes<br \/>\n       that PW-3 was not the eye witness but he was later on<br \/>\n       made eye witness in connivance with the IO (PW-6). If<br \/>\n       at all, he was present at the spot as to why he had<br \/>\n       obtained his signatures on the statement of the<br \/>\n       injured Ex.PW-2\/A. Site plan was also not prepared at<br \/>\n       the instance of PW-3. The aforesaid facts go to show<br \/>\n       that PW-3 was not present at the spot at the time of<br \/>\n       the alleged incident.     Thus, there is a material<br \/>\n       discrepancy in the statement of injured PW-2. His<br \/>\n       statement does not inspire any confidence. It is also<br \/>\n       admitted that he is also facing a trial in a case<br \/>\n       instituted at the instance of the accused. Moreover,<br \/>\n       accused had also injury which has not been explained<br \/>\n       by the prosecution which is a fatal to it.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>7.            From the evidence it is apparent that apart from Sunil<br \/>\nKumar PW-2, the person injured, his father Hans Raj PW-3 were<br \/>\nthe star witnesses of the prosecution.         It is on account of<br \/>\nmaterial discrepancies in the testimony of the two that the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge has formed an opinion of giving the benefit<br \/>\nof doubt to the accused after factoring in the testimony of Roop<br \/>\nChand DW-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.            Thus, we have proceeded to acquaint ourselves with<br \/>\nthe testimony of the three witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and DW-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.            Indeed, we find the discrepancies noted by the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge. Whereas the father says that the accused<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                          Page 4 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n came to his house at about 6:00 or 6:30 PM with 5\/6 persons<br \/>\nand inflicted 5\/6 knife blows on the person on his son, the<br \/>\ninjured i.e. the son claims that the incident took place at 8:00<br \/>\nPM and indeed, the time of the incident, as per the FIR is stated<br \/>\nto be 7:00 PM. As against the father stating that his son was<br \/>\ngiven 5\/6 knife blows, the son claims only 1 knife blow being<br \/>\ninflicted upon him. Surprisingly, we find that in the MLC of Sunil<br \/>\nthe injuries noted, caused by a sharp edged weapon are 6. We<br \/>\nfind it strange that Sunil claims being injured only once. From<br \/>\nthe MLC we find that it is the mother of Sunil who accompanied<br \/>\nhim to the hospital and had the father been present in the house<br \/>\nit was but natural that it was he who would have taken his son<br \/>\nto the hospital. As noted by the learned Trial Judge, we find that<br \/>\nSunil claims to have returned home between 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM<br \/>\nbut the father claims that his son returned home at 5:00 PM or<br \/>\n6:00 PM. If Sunil claims to have returned home at 8:00 PM it<br \/>\nassumes importance that the father claims the stabbing to have<br \/>\ntaken place at 6:00 or 6:30 PM and even as per the challan the<br \/>\nstabbing took place at 7:00 PM. The discrepancies noted by the<br \/>\nlearned Trial Judge as to the time and place when the police<br \/>\nrecorded the statements of the father and son are indeed to be<br \/>\nfound in their testimony. Indeed, reasons given by the learned<br \/>\nTrial Judge in para 15 that there is a doubt regarding the<br \/>\ninvestigation conducted by the IO at the spot are correct. The<br \/>\nclaim of the IO that no eye witness except the father was at the<br \/>\nhospital is highly doubtful keeping in view the fact that as per<br \/>\nthe MLC the injured was brought to Hindu Rao Hospital at 8:45<br \/>\nPM by his mother.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.          We concur with the reasoning of the learned Trial<br \/>\nJudge and hold that in view of the evidence of DW-1 that Sunil<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                         Page 5 of 6<\/span><br \/>\n had an altercation with 3\/4 persons at the dispensary at B-Block,<br \/>\nJahangir Puri, the accused needs to be extended the benefit of<br \/>\ndoubt as has been extended by the learned Trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.          We dismiss the appeal and discharge the personal<br \/>\nbond and surety bond furnished by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 SUNIL GAUR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>JULY 07, 2011<br \/>\nmm<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Crl.A.No.136\/1999                                        Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 7th July, 2011 + CRL.A.136\/1999 STATE &#8230;.. Appellant Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate versus DEWAN SINGH &#8230;.. Respondent Through: Ms.Savita Rao, Amicus [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-11T23:39:51+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T23:39:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1594,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-11T23:39:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-11T23:39:51+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T23:39:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011"},"wordCount":1594,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011","name":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-11T23:39:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dewan-singh-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Dewan Singh on 7 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/59061","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=59061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}