{"id":66726,"date":"2003-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003"},"modified":"2018-08-07T09:05:12","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T03:35:12","slug":"sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: R Anand<\/div>\n
Bench: R Anand<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
R.L. Anand, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. By this judgment. I dispose of Crl. Appeal
\nNo. 106-SB-90 titled Sat Pal and others v. State of
\nHaryana and Crl. Revision No.<\/a> 875 of 1990 titled Pritam
\nSingh v. Satpal and Ors. as in the opinion of this
\nCourt, both the matters can be disposed of by a common
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Crl.Appeal No. 106-SB-90 has been directed
\nagainst the judgment of conviction and order or sentence
\nboth dated 27.3.1990, passed by the Court of learned
\nSessions Judge, Ambala who convicted the appellants under
\nSections 148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section read
\nwith Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
\nthem to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay
\na fine of Rs. 1000\/- each for the offence under Section 148
\nof the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine,
\neach one of them was directed to undergo R.I. for six
\nmoths. They were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year
\neach and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/- each for committing
\nthe offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine each
\none of them was directed to undergo R.I. for a period of
\nsix months. For the offence under Section 304 Part-I read
\nwith Section 149 IPC each one of the appellants was
\ndirected to undergo R.I., for a period of 7 years and also
\nto pay a fine of Rs. 8000\/- each. In default of payment of
\nfine each one of them was called upon to undergo R.I. for
\none years. The learned trial Court also held that all the
\nsentences awarded above shall run concurrently. The whole
\nof the fine amount of Rs. 50,000\/- or part recovered shall
\nbe paid in equal shares to the widow, parents if any and
\nchildren of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
 3. In the criminal revision, it has been prayed by
\nShri Pritam Singh that the sentence awarded to the
\nappellants may be enhanced and the amount of compensation
\nmay also be enhanced for the benefit of the heirs of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
 4. S\/Shri Satpal, his three real brothers Jasbir
\nSingh, Mahipal, Mohinder Singh and Bani Singh son of Sadhu
\nSingh, were charge-sheeted under Sections
\n148, 302\/149, 323\/149 of the Indian Penal Code on the
\nallegations that firstly on 22.10.1987 in the area of
\nvillage Nagal they constituted an unlawful assembly the
\ncommon object of which was to cause the death of Puran
\nSingh and also to cause injuries to Pritam Singh and they
\ncommitted offence of rioting and at that time they
\nwere armed with deadly weapons like lathis and gandasi.
\nSecond charge against the appellants is that on the same
\nday time and place in furtherance of the common object of
\nthe unlawful assembly they committed the murder of Puran
\nSingh by intentionally causing his death and thereby
\ncommitted an offence punishable under Section 302 read
\nwith Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and thirdly on
\nthe same date time and place and in prosecution of the
\nsaid common object of the said unlawful assembly they
\nvoluntarily caused simple hurt to Pritam Singh and thereby
\ncommitted and offence punishable under Section 323\/149 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The case set up by the prosecution in the trial
\nCourt was that on 22.10.1987 at about 8.00 P.M. Pritam
\nSingh and his father Puran Singh were present in their
\nGher (cattle shed house). In the meantime, Satpal
\nappellant who is the resident of the same village and
\nwhose house is situated nearby the house of Pritam Singh
\nand Puran Singh came there and complained that water from
\nthe hand-pump installed in their Gher accumulates in the
\nstreet creating mud in frog of the house of the accused
\nparty. At that time, Satpal appellant was under the
\ninfluence of liquor and he abused to Pritam Singh and his
\nfather Puran Singh in the name of mother and sister.
\nPritam Singh tried to pacify Satpal. Upon this Satpal
\nleft the place for his house by giving a threat that he
\nwould not spare Puran Singh and his son Pritam Singh.
\nAfter a short while he returned to the spot armed with a
\nGandasi and again started hurting abuses upon the
\ncomplainant. After about two minutes, three brothers of
\nSatpal Singh namely Mahipal Singh, Jasbir Singh and
\nMohinder Singh along with their uncle Bani Singh
\n(appellants) came there and they were armed with lathis.
\nMohinder Singh raised a Lalkara to his companions to beat
\nPuran Singh and Pritam Singh as they had been objecting to
\nthe filling of the well. Satpal Singh opened the attack
\nand he gave gandasi blow from the reverse side on the head
\nof Pritam Singh, Mohinder Singh gave a lathi blow to Pritam
\nSingh on his head upon which Pritam Singh fell on the
\nground. Mahipal Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blows to
\nPritam Singh. Mahipal Singh, Bani Singh and Jasbir Singh
\nfurther gave lathi blows to Puran Singh followed by Satpal
\nSingh who gave a gandasi blow from the reverse side on the
\nhead of Puran Singh who also fell down and became
\nunconscious. The blood came out from the injuries of
\nPuran Singh. The occurrence was witnessed by one Mohkam
\nSingh younger brother of Pritam Singh and two residents of
\nthe village namely Sham Singh and Dharam Pal along with
\nmany others who reached at the spot. On seeing them, the
\naccused fled away from the place of occurrence with their
\nrespective weapons. Both the injured namely Puran Singh
\nand Pritam Singh were removed to Civil Hospital
\nYamunanagar by Mohkam Singh and Sham Singh. On the next
\nday, Puran Singh was removed to PGI Chandigarh and after 2
\ndays he died there on 25.10.1987. The report about crime
\nwas lodged by Pritam Singh injured witness at 4.30 P.M.
\non 23.10.1987 when he made a statement before the
\nAssistant Sub Inspector Shri Hari Ram. Before recording
\nthe statement of Pritam Singh, the Investigating Officer
\ntook the opinion from the doctor about the fitness of
\nPritam Singh who was declared fit to make a statement.
\nThe statement of Pritam Singh was sent to the Police
\nStation Sadar Yamunanagar on 23.10.1987 for the
\nregistration of the case and all the accused were arrested
\non the same day. The Investigating Officer, Shri Hari
\nRam, visited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and
\nlifted the blood stained earth and made a sealed parcel
\nthereof. This was taken into possession from the cattle
\nshed of house of Puran Singh. After completion of
\ninvestigation of the case, the appellants were challaned
\nunder Sections 302\/323\/148\/149 IPC in the Court of the Area
\nMagistrate who supplied the copies of the documents to the
\naccused and vide commitment order dated 19.1.1988, he
\ncommitted the accused to the Court of Session to face the
\ntrial. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
\n20.4.1988 framed the charges against the appellants under
\nSections 148, 302\/149 and 323\/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
\nThe charges were read over and explained to the appellants
\nto which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
 6. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution
\nexamined Shri Pritam Singh injured. Dharam Pal Sham
\nSingh the residents of the village as the witnesses of the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Pritam Singh appearing as PW-10 gave a detailed
\naccount of the occurrence. He made, a statement that on
\n22.10.1987 at 8.00 P.M. he was present along with his
\nfather Puran Singh in his Gher when appellants Satpal came
\nin the street in front of their Gher and started abusing
\nby saying that water discharged from the hand pump of the
\ncomplainant accumulates in the street. The witness also
\nstated that he and his father tried to make him understand
\nbut Shri Satpal Singh left the place of occurrence by
\ngiving threat that he would teach the injured and his
\nfather a lesson. It has also come in the statement of the
\ninjured witness that after sometime Satpal armed with a
\nGandasi and the remaining appellants armed with Lathis
\ncame inside the Gher of Puran Singh. Satpal was hurling
\nabuses and Mohinder Singh gave a Lalkara by entering
\ninside the Gher exhorting is co-accused that the
\ncomplainants should be killed as they had objected to their
\nact of filling the Panchayat well. It has also come in
\nthe statement of the injured witness that Satpal opened
\nthe attack and he inflicted the Gandasi blow from the
\nreverse side on the head of Pritam Singh followed by
\nMohinder Singh who gave a Lathi blow on his head as a
\nresult of which he fell down and when his father Puran
\nSingh stepped forward in order to save him. Mahipal Singh,
\nJasbir Singh and Bani Singh gave lathi blow to his father
\nShri Puran Singh followed by Satpal Singh who also gave a
\nGandasi blow from the reverse side as a result of which
\nPuran Singh also fell on the ground. Further, it has come
\nin the statement of the witness that Mahipal Singh and
\nBani Singh gave one Lathi blow each to Pritam Singh when
\nhe was lying on the ground. It has further come in the
\nstatement of Shri Pritam Singh injured witness that Dharam
\nPal and Sham Singh reached the spot when the accused were
\ngiving abuses and these witnesses have also witnessed the
\noccurrence. The statement of injured witness Shri Pritam
\nSingh has been corroborated in all material particulars by
\nShri Dharam Pal who appeared as PW-11.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Further it has come in the statement of Sham
\nSingh who appeared as PW-12 that on the earlier Diwali
\nday, he was present at his house in the evening when
\nSatpal Singh and other accused had gone to the Gher of
\nPuran Singh where Puran Singh along with his son Pritam
\nSingh was present. He went to the Gher of Puran Singh on
\nhearing the abuses and found that the appellants were
\narmed with Gandasi and Lathis and they inflicted the
\ninjuries to S\/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh, meaning
\nthereby that this witness Shri Sham Singh has given ample
\ncorroboration to the statement of Pritam Singh injured and
\nShri Dharam Pal. The oral account of three witnesses has
\nbeen corroborated by the statement of Dr. Inderjit Dewan.
\nEmeratis Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Medicine PGI.
\nChandigarh who conducted the post mortem examination on
\nthe dead body of Puran Singh. The post-mortem was
\nconducted by this doctor on 26.10.1987 and he found the
\nfollowing injuries on the dead body of the deceased Puran
\nSingh:-\n<\/p>\n
1. A reddish abrasion 4 x 1.5 cm on the upper part
\nof which there was a lacerated stitched wound.
\nlocated on the right side of the scalp.oblique
\nin directing going downwards and forwards from a
\npoint 2 cm right of middle line and 14 cm above
\nnasion, the lower part reached 8 cm above and 2
\ncm right of right eye brow. After stitches had
\nbeen removed the lacerated wound was found to
\nbe 1.6 x 0.3 cm and deep to the bone.\n<\/p>\n
 2. A lacerated wound 8 x 2 mm deep to bone located
\n2 cm below and 1 cm in front of injury No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
 Description of skull was present
\nunderneath these injuries in an area 10×10 cm.\n<\/p>\n
Operation wound is stitched, curved
\noperation would 22 cm long on right
\nfronto-parieto temporal region starting 9 cm
\nabove nasion, going backwards downwards and
\nthe right to reach right pinna.\n<\/p>\n
 There was a craniectomy gap 9 x 7 cm
\ninvolving right fronto, parietal region of
\nskull located under injuries No. 1 and 2. A
\nfragment of bone 3 x 2 cm was present in the
\nupper posterior part of the craniectomy. A
\nfracture line extended downward for 4 cm from
\nthe lower posterior angle of craniectomy
\ntowards the temporal region. The dura was
\nopen and brain was protruding through the gap,
\nit was soft and lacerated. The laceration was
\nin the fronto parieto temporal region of the
\nbrain on right side. It measured 7x6x2 cm.
\nThe brain was cedematcus, Tonsils, were
\ngrooved. The injuries were ante mortem and in
\nmy opinion were caused by heavy blunt weapon.
\nLarynx and tracheae were congested. The right
\nlower lobe of the lung was consolidated while
\nthe other lobes of the right lung and that of
\nthe left were congested and edematous. The
\nstomach contained 300 cc of dark coffee
\ncoloured fluid and had areas of petechail
\nhaemorrhage on the mucous membranae. Liver
\nhad areas of congestion. All other organs
\nwere healthy.\n<\/p>\n
 9. As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of
\ndeath in this case was laceration of the brain due to the
\nfractured skull and this injury was caused by a heavy
\nblunt weapon. This injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause
\nthe death in the ordinary course of nature. Though injury
\nNo. 2 was very small. Dr. Dewan proved Ex.PA the correct
\ncarbon copy of the post mortem report and Exs.P.1 to P.5
\nare the photographs which were developed in his department
\nand the photos taken at the time of the post mortem
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Further the ocular account is supported by PW-3
\nDr. K.K. Arora, Medical officer, M.L. Civil Hospital, Yamuna
\nNagar who on 22.10.1987 at 11.00 P.M. medically examined
\nPritam Singh PW and found the following four injuries on
\nhis person:-\n<\/p>\n
1. A lacerated wound 3″x1\/4″ into scalp deep
\npresent on right parietal scalp covered with
\nsoft clotted blood.\n<\/p>\n
 2. A lacerated wound 2″x1\/4″ into scalp deep on
\nfrontal scalp I” to the left of midline covered
\nwith soft clotted blood I advised x-ray skull.
\nAP and lateral view for injury No. 1 and 2 which
\nwere later on fond to be simple in nature after
\nx-ray examination.\n<\/p>\n
 3. A contusion mark 1″x1″ on right cheek below
\nright eye<\/p>\n
The patient was semi conscious, responded to
\npainful stimulai, pulse was 82 per minute, blood
\npressure 100\/60 pupils both eyes equal and
\nreacting to light.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Abrasion 1″x1\/2″ on the back, 1″ to the left of
\nmidline at the level of T-8.\n<\/p>\n
 11. As per the opinion of the Dr. Arora, all the
\ninjuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PD is the
\ncorrect carbon copy of the MLR.\n<\/p>\n
 12. This very doctor also medically examined Shri
\nPuran Singh deceased at the first instance and the
\nfollowing five injuries were noticed on his person:-\n<\/p>\n
1. A lacerated wound 1″x1\/4″ into scalp deep on
\nright parietal scalp covered with soft
\nclotted blood.\n<\/p>\n
2. A lacerated wound 1\/2″x1\/10″ into scalp deep
\non frontal scalp 3″ to the right of midline
\ncovered with soft clotted blood.\n<\/p>\n
 3. A contusion mark 3″x2″ on right temporal
\nscalp.\n<\/p>\n
 4. A contusion mark 2″x1″ on right eye-brow.
\nPatient was unable to open his right eye due
\nto ecchymosis present on right upper lids. I
\nadvised X-ray skull, AP and lateral view for
\ninjuries No. 1, 2, 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
5. Patient complained of pain in right shoulder
\nbut no mark of external injury was seen. I
\nadvised X-ray right shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
 13.
\nAs per the opinion of the doctor, all the
\ninjuries were caused by blunt weapon. Ex.PE is the
\ncorrect carbon copy of the MLR. The X-ray was advised and
\non x-ray conducted on 23.10.87, it was found that there
\nwas a fracture of skull bone and there was also fracture
\nof right clavicle bone of Shri Puran Singh. Injury No. 1
\nwas declared dangerous to life while injury No. 5 was
\ndeclared grievous. Other injuries were declared simple.
\nEx.PF is the X-ray report. Exs.P.6., P.7 and P.8 are the
\nrelevant skigrams. The doctor also stated that he sent
\nrukka Ex.PG to the Police-Station along with Medico legal
\nreport and he also gave opinion Ex.PH\/1 on the police
\napplication Ex.PH to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit
\nto make a statement. Puran Singh was referred to
\nPGI, Chandigarh on 23.10.1987. On police application
\nEx.PJ, he declared Pritam Singh unfit to make the
\nstatement on 23.10.1987 at about 4.00 A.M. but on the
\nsame day he declared him fit to make a statement at 4.00
\nP.M. vide his report Ex.PJ\/1 and PJ\/2.\n<\/p>\n
 14. Dr. K. Sridhar, Senior Resident, Neuro Sugery,
\nPGI, Chandigarh while appearing as PW-9, made a statement
\nthat Shri Puran Singh who was admitted in the PGI on
\n23.10.1987 and remained unconscious throughout till his
\ndeath which took place on 25.10.1987 at 6.50 A.M. The
\ncase of the prosecution is further supported by the
\nstatement of Shri Hari Ram the Investigated Officer PW-8
\nwho on receipt of the rukka Ex.PG along with MLR Ex.PD and
\nPE, made an entry in the Rojnamcha. He visited the
\nhospital Yamunanagar. He submitted the application Ex.PH
\nbefore the doctor to ascertain his opinion whether Puran
\nSingh was fit to make a statement or not. Puran Singh was
\ndeclared unfit to make a statement. He also submitted
\nExPJ regarding the fitness of Pritam Singh. At 4.A.M.
\nthe doctor declared him unfit but at about 4.P.M. he
\ndeclared him fit to make statement. Thereafter, he
\nrecorded the statement Ex.PR of Pritam Singh in the
\nhospital and after making an endorsement Ex.PR\/1
\nunderneath the said statement, it was sent to the
\nPolice-Station for the registration of the case on the
\nbasis of which formal FIR Ex.PR\/2 was recorded by Sub
\nInspector Prabhu Ram. The witness also stated that he
\nvisited the place of occurrence on 23.10.1987 and lifted
\nblood stained earth and two blood stained bags from the
\nspot in the presence of Sham Singh and Mohkam Singh vide
\nMemo Ex.PS and he further prepared the rough site plan
\nEx.PT of the place of occurrence. He also deposed that he
\narrested all the five accused on 23.10.1987.\n<\/p>\n
 15. ASI, Om Prakash was also examined by the
\nprosecution as PW5 who obtained the opinion Ex.PM\/1 from
\nthe doctor to the effect that Puran Singh was unfit to
\nmake a statement. PW-7 Shri Isham Singh made a statement
\nthat Shri Mohinder Singh appellant suffered a disclosure
\nstatement Ex.PO and on the basis of disclosure statement
\nhe got recovered 4 lathis P9 and P.12 and Gandasi P.13
\nwhich were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PP.\n<\/p>\n
 16. ASI, Prabhu Ram PW-13 deposed that on
\n25.10.1987 he visited PGI and prepared inquest report
\nEx.P8 on the dead body of the Puran Singh and further he
\ninterrogated Mohinder Singh appellant who in pursuance of
\nthe disclosure statement Ex.PO got recovered 4 Lathis and
\none gandasi from his tubewell Kotha and those were taken
\ninto possession vide memo Ex.PP.\n<\/p>\n
 17. On the closure of the evidence of the
\nprosecution the statements of the accused were recorded
\nunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating
\ncircumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were
\nput to the accused. The stand of Shri Jasbir Singh, Bani
\nSingh, Mohinder Singh and Mahi Pal was that they were not
\npresent at the spot while the stand of Shri Satpal Singh
\nwas that he was an army man and has been falsely
\nimplicated to ensure that he may be dismissed from
\nservices. He stated that he had come to the village on
\nannual leave. It was a Diwali day. At about 9\/10 the
\nvillages including the residents of the mohalla had tried
\nto close the well in front of his house because there were
\ncomplaints of the Mohalla Wala that small children used to
\nfall in that well. Pritam Singh and Puran Singh had
\nobstructed the closing of the well even earlier. On that
\nday Puran and Pritam were under the influence of liquor
\nand they came there in order to stop the villagers from
\nfilling the well. A scuffle took place between them and
\nthe residents of the Mohalla and during the course of
\nscuffle Pritam and Puran Singh had suffered injuries.\n<\/p>\n
 18. When called upon to enter in to their defence
\nthey did not lead any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
 19. The learned trial Court believed the story of
\nthe prosecution but came to the conclusion that the
\nappellants are guilty for the offence under Sections
\n148, 323 and 304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC.
\nResultantly they were convicted and sentenced in the
\nmanner as stated above and aggrieved by their conviction
\nand sentence the present appeal and the revision by the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
 20. I have heard Shri K.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate,
\nappearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sanjay
\nVashisth, learned DAG, appearing on behalf of the State
\nand Shri A.S. Khaira, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
\ncomplainant and with their assistance have gone through
\nthe record of this case.\n<\/p>\n
 21. The first effort which was made by the learned
\nSenior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants was
\nthat as the occurrence had taken place on 22.10.1987 on a
\nDiwali day but the first information was registered on
\n23.10.1987. There was a delay in the lodging of the first
\ninformation report. The submission of the counsel for hue
\nappellants, cannot be accepted. It is a case of the
\nprosecution that S\/Shri Puran Singh and Pritam Singh
\nsuffered the injuries. Some of the injuries were on the
\nvital parts of the body. Puran Singh became unconscious.
\nIn these circumstances, it will always be the anxiety of
\nthe attendants to remove the injured to the hospital for
\nthe survival fie their lives. An effort was made by the
\nInvestigating Officer to obtain the opinion from the doctor
\non 23.10.1987 itself at 4.00 A.M. and injured were
\ndeclared unfit to make a statement. Shri Puran Singh was
\nreferred to bigger hospital for better treatment. Again
\nan effort was made by the Investigating Officer on
\n23.10.1987 to obtain the opinion from the doctor at 4.00
\nP.M. and Pritam Singh was declared fit to make a
\nstatement. In this view of the matter. I am not inclined
\nto hold that there was any deliberate delay on the part of
\nthe complainant. Be that as it may, the delay per se is
\nnot fatal in this case.\n<\/p>\n
 22. It was then submitted by the counsel for the
\nappellants that Puran Singh and Pritam Singh were the
\naggressors as their house was at a higher level. They
\nused to discharge the water from the hand-pump and the
\nwater used to accumulate in front of the house of the
\naccused. They and other villagers objected to Puran Singh
\nand Pritam Singh. In fact the dispute had taken place
\nbetween the villagers on one side and Puran Singh and
\nPritam Singh on the other but the appellants have been
\nfalsely implicated in this case. I am not ready to accept
\nthis argument also. If Pritam Singh wanted to implicate
\nfalsely some assailants there was no difficulty on his
\npart to name the persons who were his co-villagers.
\nPritam Singh could very easily implicate them also in the
\npresent case but he has not done so. Therefore, the
\nconduct of Shri Pritam Singh is very natural when he has
\nnamed four brothers and their 5th relation in the present
\ncrime. It is the admitted case of the appellants that
\nthey were neighbours. They must be aggrieved of the
\nalleged act of Puran Singh and Pritam Singh when they were
\ndischarging the water from the hand-pump and the said
\nwater used to accumulate in front of the house of the
\nappellants. The ball is in the court-yard of the
\nappellants. The present occurrence had taken place on the
\nDiwali day. It is the case of the appellants that Shri
\nSatpal had returned to the village for availing of leave from
\nthe army. We know that in this part of the country
\nespecially the villagers when they celebrate Diwali a lot
\nof liquor is invariably consumed. Under the influence of
\nliquor, this military man Shri Satpal could not tolerate
\nthat water may be accumulated in frong of his house. He
\nmust have abused Puran Singh and Pritam Singh and
\nthereafter, he mustered the strength by calling his close
\nrelatives Jasbir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Mahipal Singh and
\nBani Singh who appeared at the scene with deadly weapons.
\nThe occurrence as unfolded by Pritam Singh has been
\nsupported by two eye witnesses of the occurrence who were
\nattracted at the place of occurrence on hearing the Raula.
\nThey have no axe to grind against the appellants. The
\nevidence of Pritam Singh and two eye witnesses is further
\ncorroborated by the medical evidence unfolded by the three
\ndoctors who firstly medically examined both the injured
\nand thereafter, the opinion of the expert Dr. Dewan who
\nconducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of
\nPuran Singh, further strengthens the case of the
\nprosecution that blunt weapon like the reverse side of the
\ngandasi and lathis were used for the commission of the
\npresent offence the preset occurrence is unfolded by a
\nstamped witness Shri Pritam Singh. An effort was made to
\nconvince me that Mr. Sham Singh eye witness is an
\ninterested witness being the brother of Puran Singh
\ndeceased and he and Dharam Pal have been introduced as
\nfalse witnesses. I am not inclined to accept this
\ncontention. Mere relationship is no ground to reject the
\ntestimony of a witness. At the most I can scrutinise the
\nstatement of Sham Singh with care and caution along with
\nDharam Pal but in the present set of circumstances, the
\npresence of Sham Singh and Dharam Pal is very much
\nprobable because it is the case of the prosecution that
\nthere was some commotion before the actual assault.
\nAccused appeared at the scene and they were raising
\nLalkaras. They objected to the discharge of the water of
\nthe hand-pump and in these circumstances, some villagers
\nincluding the relations of the complainant party must have
\ncome at he spot. If Dharam Pal and Sham Singh came at
\nthe spot on hearing the Raula, there is no improbability
\nin it. The presence of these witnesses at about 8.00 P.M.
\non a Diwali Day is most natural because it is always the
\nanxiety of every individual especially in this part of the
\ncountry, to remain present on Diwali day with his family
\nmembers. The present occurrence has also taken place in
\nthe Gher of Puran Singh from where the blood stained earth
\nwas lifted which is clearly suggestive of the fact that
\nthe appellants acted as an aggressor.\n<\/p>\n
 23. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the appellants submitted in the
\nalternative that as the complainant party and the accused
\nparty are neighbours and relatives, therefore,
\nleniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. I am not
\ninclined to accept this contention. A human life has been
\nlost in this case. The act and conduct of the appellants
\nwas such that it was not excusable. They were armed with
\ndeadly weapons like Gandasi and lathis. The injured has
\nsuffered the injuries on the vital parts of the body.
\nTherefore, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence which
\nhas been awarded by the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
 24. The resume of my above discussion is that the
\npresent story of the prosecution has been proved not only
\nfrom the statement of the injured\/stamp witness but also
\nfrom two natural witnesses who had the cause and occasion
\nto be present at the spot. Further the evidence of the
\nthree witness is supported by the medical evidence
\nunfolded by three doctors. There was a motive on the part
\nof the appellants to commit the crime. Four are real
\nbrothers and 5th is their relation. They joined heads.
\nThey appeared at the scene with a concentrated mind. They
\nconstituted an unlawful assembly. The object of the
\nunlawful assembly was to inflict the injuries.\n<\/p>\n
 25. It was also submitted by the counsel for the
\nappellants that at the most the offence under Section 304
\nPart-II is made out. I am not inclined to accept this
\ncontention also. It is a case of multiple injuries.
\nThere was no provocation from the side of the deceased or
\ninjured witness. The injury on the person of the deceased
\nwas on the vital part of the body. There was a fracture
\nof the skull which was found depressed at the time of the
\npost mortem examination. There was a repetition of blows.
\nAll these circumstances make out a case under Section 304
\nPart-I because there was no previous enmity in this case.
\nBy maintaining conviction and sentence of all the five
\nappellants their appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 26. Reverting to the revision of the complainant, I
\nam of the opinion that the learned trial Court has already
\ntaken care of the miseries of the complainant party. The
\namount of compensation if realised has already been
\nordered to be paid to the complainant and the legal heirs
\nof the deceased Puran Singh. The sentence of 7 years, in
\nmy opinion is not on the lower side for an offence under
\nSection 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I
\ndo not see any merit in this revision and the same is
\nhereby dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 Author: R Anand Bench: R Anand JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. 1. By this judgment. I dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 106-SB-90 titled Sat Pal and others v. State of Haryana and Crl. Revision No. 875 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T03:35:12+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sat Pal S\\\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T03:35:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4775,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\",\"name\":\"Sat Pal S\\\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T03:35:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sat Pal S\\\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T03:35:12+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T03:35:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003"},"wordCount":4775,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003","name":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal ... vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T03:35:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-so-ghasitu-ram-mahi-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-22-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sat Pal S\/O Ghasitu Ram, Mahi Pal … vs The State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2003"}]},{"@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\/66726","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=66726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}