{"id":77140,"date":"1952-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952"},"modified":"2018-10-01T19:07:05","modified_gmt":"2018-10-01T13:37:05","slug":"palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","title":{"rendered":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 354, \t\t 1952 SCR 94<\/div>\n
Author: M C Mahajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPALVINDER KAUR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB(RUP SINGH-Caveator)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/10\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBENCH:\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR  354\t\t  1952 SCR   94\n CITATOR INFO :\n A\t    1960 SC 409\t (8)\n RF\t    1965 SC1413\t (5,13)\n R\t    1966 SC 119\t (12)\n F\t    1968 SC 829\t (6)\n D\t    1969 SC 422\t (19,21)\n R\t    1972 SC  66\t (12,13)\n D\t    1975 SC1925\t (42,43,44)\n F\t    1976 SC1167\t (15)\n RF\t    1976 SC1797\t (6)\n R\t    1979 SC 154\t (42)\n R\t    1979 SC 826\t (22)\n R\t    1990 SC  79\t (19)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal  trial-Circumstantial\tevidence-Duty of  courts  to\nsafeguard  themselves against basing decision\t suspicions-\nConfesSion'-Must  be  accepted or rejected as  a  whole-Self\nexculpatory statement containing admission of  incriminating\nfacts-Admission\t of incriminating portion as true  rejecting\nexculpatory  portion as false -Legality-Indian\tPenal  Code,\n1860, s. 201-Essential ingredients of offence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  eases depending   circumstantial evidence courts  should\nsafeguard  themselves  against the danger of  basing  _their\nconclusions   suspicions howsoever strong.\n\tRex  V. Hodge (1838) 2 Lew. 227, and  Nargundkar  v.\nState of Madhya Pradesh (1952) S.C.R. 1091 referred to,\n\t\t\t     95\nTo establish a charge under s. 201, Indian Penal Code, it is\nessential to prove that an offence has been committed  (mere\nsuspicion  that\t it has been committed is  not\tsufficient);\nthat  the  accused knew or had reason to believe  that\tsuch\noffence\t had  been committed ; and that with  the  requisite\nknowledge  and with the intent to screen the  offender\tfrom\nlegal punishment the accused caused the evidence thereof  to\ndisappear or gave false information respecting such  offence\nknowing\t or having reason to believe the same to be,  false.\nWhere  the evidence showed that a person had died, that\t his\nbody  was found in &,trunk and was discovered in a well\t and\nthat  the accused took part in the disposal of the body\t but\nthere was no evidence to show the cause of his death or\t the\nmanner\tor circumstances in which it came about: Held,\tthat\nthe  accused could not be convicted for an offence under  s.\n201.\nA  statement  that contains self exculpatory  matter  cannot\namount to a confession, if the exculpatory matter is of some\nfact, which if true would negative the offence alleged to be\nconfessed.   A\tconfession must either admit  in  terms\t the\noffence\t or  at any rate substantially all  the\t facts\tthat\nconstitute the offence.\nNarayanaswami v. Emperor (1939) 66 I.A. 66, referred to.\nIt is a well accepted rule regarding the use of\t confessions\nand admissions that these must either be accepted as a whole\nor  rejected as a whole and that the court is not  competent\nto  accept  only the inculpatory part  while  rejecting\t the\nexculpatory part as inherently incredible.\nEmperor v. Balmukand (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 1011, followed.\nWhere  the  statement  made  by\t the  accused  contained  an\nadmission  that she had placed the dead body of her  husband\nin a trunk and bad carried it in a jeep and thrown it into a\nwell,  but  with  regard  to the  cause\t of  the  death\t the\nstatement  made by her was that her husband  bad  accidently\ntaken  a  poisonous substance which was\t meant\tfor  washing\nphotos\terroneously thinking it to be a medicine: Held,\t the\nstatement  read as a whole was exculpatory in character\t and\nthe  whole  statement was inadmissible in evidence  and\t the\nHigh Court acted erroneously in accepting the former part of\nit and rejecting the latter part as false.\nJudgment of the High Court of Punjab reversed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 41  of
\n1952.\tAppeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order
\ndated  the  3rd\t October,,  1951,  of  the  High  Court\t  of
\nJudicature  for the State of Punjab at Simla  (Bhandari\t and
\nSoni-JJ\t in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1961, arising  out  of
\nthe Judgment and Order dated the, 31st January, 1951, of the
\nCourt of the Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Case No. 23  of’1950
\nand Trial No. 2 of 1951,
\n96<\/span>
\nJai GopalSethi (B.  L. Kohli with him) for the Appellant.
\nH.S.  Gujral, for the respondent. Bhagat Singh\tChawla,\t for
\nthe Caveator.\n<\/p>\n
1952.  October 22.  The judgment 0f the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nMAHAJAN\t J.-Palvinder  Kaur,was tried  for  offences  under
\nsections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, in connection\twith
\nthe murder of her husband, Jaspal Singh.  She was  convicted
\nby  -the Sessions Judge under section, 302 and sentenced  to
\ntransportation for life.  No verdict was recorded  regarding
\nthe  charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code.     appeal
\nto the High Court she was acquitted of the charge of murder,
\nbut was convicted under section 201, Indian Penal Code,\t and
\nsentenced to seven years’ rigorous Imprisonment.  Her appeal
\nby special leave is now before us.\n<\/p>\n
   Jaspal  Singh,  deceased, was the son of  the  Chief\t of
\nBhareli\t (Punjab).  He was married to Palvinder Kaur  a\t few
\nyears ago and they had two children.  The. husband and\twife
\nwere  living together in Bhareli house, Ambala.\t It is\tsaid
\nthat  Jaspal’s\trelations with his father  and\tgrandfather,
\nwere  not  very\t cordial and the  two  elders  thought\tthat
\nPalvinder  Kaur was responsible, for this.  It is also\tsaid
\nthat Jaspal lived   the allowance he got from his father and
\nsupplemented  his  income by selling milk and  eggs  and  by
\ndoing  some  odd jobs.\tMohinderpal Singh (a  fugitive\tfrom
\njustice) who is related to the appellant and was employed as
\na storekeeper in Baldevnagar Camp, Ambala, used occasionally
\nto  reside  in Bhareli house.  It is suggested that  he\t had
\nstarted a liaison with Palvinder.\n<\/p>\n
     The  prosecution  case  is\t that  Sardar  Jaspal\twas
\nadministered  potassium cyanide poison by the appellant\t and
\nMohinderpal   the afternoon of the 6th February, 1950.\t The
\ndead body was then put into a large trunk and kept in one of
\nthe rooms in the house in Ambala city.\tAbout ten days later
\ni.e.,\tthe
\n\t\t\t    97<\/span>
\n\t16th February, 1950, Mohinderpal during the absence
\nof the appellant, removed the trunk from the house in a jeep
\nwhen  he  came there with Amrik Singh and Kartar  Singh\t (P.
\nWs.),  two watermen of the Baldevnagar Camp.  The trunk\t was
\nthen taken to Baldevnagar Camp and was kept in a store\troom
\nthere.\t Three\tdays  later,\tthe  19th  February,   1950,
\nMohinderpal accompanied by Palvinder and a domestic servant,
\nTrilok Chand (P.  W. 27), took the trunk a few-miles\tthe’
\nroad  leading to Rajpura, got\tto a katcha road and in\t the
\nvicinity of village Chhat took the jeep to a well   a  mound
\nand  threw,  the  box  into it.\t The jeep  was\ttaken  to  a
\ngurdwara where it was washed.\n<\/p>\n
       After the disappearance of the deceased, his  father
\nmade  enquiries from Mohinderpal regarding the’\t whereabouts
\nof  his\t missing  son.\t Mohinderpal  made   various   false
\nstatements  to\thim.\t the 8th  March,  1950,\t the  father
\nadvertised  in the “Daily Milap” begging his son  to  return
\nhome  as soon as possible as the condition of his  wife\t and
\nchildren  and  parents\thad become miserable  owing  to\t his
\nabsence.\n<\/p>\n
    On\t  the 10th March, 1950, i.e., a, month and ten days
\nafter  the  alleged murder and 19 days after the  trunk\t was
\nthrown into the well, obnoxious smell was coming out of\t the
\nwell,  and the matter being reported to the  lambardars\t of’
\nvillage\t Chhat,\t the trunk was taken out.   The\t matter\t was
\nreported to the police and Sardar Banta Singh, Sub-Inspector
\nof  Police,    the  11th  March arrived\t at  the  scene\t and
\nprepared  the inquest report and sent for the  doctor.\t The
\npostmortem  examination\t was performed\t the spot  the\tnext
\nday.  No photograph of the body was taken and it was allowed
\nto  be\tcremated.  After more than two and  a  half  months,
\nthe 28th April, 1950 th -first information report was lodged
\nagainst\t the appellant and Mohinderpal and   the26th June  a
\nchallan\t was  presented\t in  the  court\t of  the  committing
\nmagistrate  Mohinderpal was not traceable and the  case\t Was
\nstarted against the appellant alone,
\n98<\/span>
\nThere is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant
\nor  Mohinderpal\t or  both  of  them  administered  potassium
\ncyanide\t to Jaspal and the evidence regarding the murder  is
\npurely circumstantial.\tThe learned Sessions Judge took\t the
\nview  that  the\t circumstantial evidence  in  the  case\t was
\nincompatible  with  the innocence of the accused,  and\theld
\nthat  the case against the appellant was proved\t beyond\t any
\nreasonable  doubt.   The High Court   appeal  arrived  at  a
\ndifferent  conclusion.\tIt held that though the\t body  found
\nfrom the well was not capable of identification, the clothes
\nrecovered from the trunk and found   the body proved that it
\nwas  the body of Jaspal.  It further held that the cause  of
\ndeath  could  not be ascertained from the  medical  evidence
\ngiven  in  the case.  The -evidence   the  question  of\t the
\nidentity  of  the dead body consisted of  the  statement  of
\nconstable  Lachhman  ‘Singh,  of  the  clothes\tand   other’
\narticles  recovered from inside the trunk and of an  alleged
\nconfession  of the accused.  As regards the first  piece  of
\nevidence the High Court expressed the following opinion:\n<\/p>\n
     “There  is\t in our opinion considerable force  in\tthe
\ncontention  that not only are foot constable Lachhman  Singh
\nand  Assistant Sub-Inspector Banta Singh testifying  to\t the
\nfacts  which  are  false to their  knowledge  but  that\t the\n<\/p>\n
-prosecution are responsible for deliberately introducing  a
\nfalse witness and for asking the other witnesses to  support
\nthe  story narrated by Lachhman Singh that he identified the
\nbody  to  be  that  of Jaspal Singh    the  11th  March\t and
\ncommunicate  the information to the father of  the  deceased
\nthe following day.)’
\nAs  regards the extra-judicial confessions alleged to.\thave
\nbeen  made  to Sardar Rup Singh and  Sardar  Balwant  Singh,
\nfather\tand  grandfather  of the deceased,  they  were\theld
\ninadmissible   and  unreliable.\t  The  confession  made\t  by
\nPalvinder  to  the magistrate,\t the 15th April,  1950,\t was
\nhowever\t used  in  evidence  against  her    the   following
\nreasoning:\n<\/p>\n
“It  is true that strictly speaking exculpatory\t  statements
\nin which the prisoner denies her guilt cannot
\n\t\t\t    99<\/span>
\nbe  regarded as confessions, but these statements are  often
\nused  as circumstantial evidence of guilty consciousness  by
\nshowing them to be false and fabricated.”\n<\/p>\n
It  was also found that though Palvinder might have  desired
\nto  continue her illicit intrigue with Mohinderpal  she\t may
\nnot  have desired to sacrifice her wealth and-\tposition  at
\nthe  altar of love.  She may have had’ a motive to kill\t her
\nhusband\t but a stronger motive to preserve her own  position
\nas  the wife of a prospective chief of Bhareli and  that  in
\nthis situation it was by no means impossible that the murder
\nwas  committed by Mohinderpal alone without the consent\t and
\nknowledge  of Palvinder, and that though a strong  suspicion
\nattached  to  Palvinder,  it was impossible  to\t state\twith
\nconfidence  that poison was administered by her.   Therefore
\nit was not possible to convict her under section 302, Indian
\nPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n
Concerning the charge under section 201, Indian Penal  Code,
\nthe  High  Court  held\tthat the  most\timportant  piece  of
\nevidence  in support of the charge was the confession  which
\nPalvinder made\t the 15th April, 1950, and this\t confession,
\nthough\t retracted,   was  corroborated\t   this\t  point\t  by
\nindependent evidence and established the charge.
\nThe  judgment of the High Court was impugned before  us\t   a
\nlarge number of grounds.  Inter alia, it was contended\tthat
\nin  examining Palvinder Kaur at great length the High  Court
\ncontravened the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nand that the Full Bench decision of the High Court in  Dhara
\nSingh’s\t  case(1)  was\twrong  in  law,\t that  the   alleged
\nconfession of the appellant being an. exculpatory statement,
\nthe same was inadmissible in evidence and could not be\tused
\nas  evidence against her, that it had been  contradicted  in
\nmost material particulars by the prosecution evidence itself
\nand  was  false and that in any case it could  not  be\tused
\npiecemeal; that the offences under sections 302\/34 and\t201,
\nIndian Penal Code, being distinct offences committed at\t two
\ndifferent times and being
\n(1)  (I952) 54 P.L.R, 58,
\n100<\/span>
\n\t separate  transactions, the appellant having  been
\nconvicted  of  the offence under section 302,  Indian  Penal
\nCode,  only  by\t the Session Judge, the High  Court  had  no
\njurisdiction when acquitting her of that offence to, convict
\nher under section 201 of the same Code; that the  statements
\nof  Mohinderpal to ‘various witnesses land his conduct\twere
\nnot relevant against the appellant; that Karamchand and Mst.
\nLachhmi were in the nature of accomplices and the High Court
\nerred  in relying   their testimony without  any  corrobora-
\ntion;  that the High Court having disbelieved eight  of\t the
\nwitnesses of the prosecution and having held that they\twere
\nfalsely\t introduced into the case, the\tinvestigation  being
\nextremely  belated  and the story having been  developed  at
\ndifferent  stages,  the High Court should  not\thave  relied
\nthe  same;  and lastly that the-  pieces  of  circumstantial
\nevidence  proved against the appellant were consistent\twith
\nseveral\t innocent explanations and the High Court  therefore
\nerred  in  relying    them without  excluding  those  possi-
\nbilities.\n<\/p>\n
     The decision of the appeal, in our view, lies within a
\nvery  narrow  compass and it is not necessary  to  pronounce
\nall the points that were-argued before us.  In our judgment,
\nthere  is  no evidence’to establish affirmatively  that\t the
\ndeath  of  Jaspal was caused by potassium cyanide  and\tthat
\nbeing  so, the charge under section 201, Indian Penal  Code,
\nmust  also  fail.’  The High Court in  reaching\t a  contrary
\nconclusion  not only acted   suspicions and conjectures\t but
\ninadmissible evidence.,
\n     The  circumstances in which Jaspal died will for  ever
\nremain\tshrouded in mystery and\t  the material placed\t the
\nrecord\tit is not possible to unravel them.  It may well  be
\nthat he was murdered by Mohinderpal without the knowledge or
\nconsent\t of  Palvinder\tand  the  incident  took  place\t  at
\nBaldevnagar  Camp and not at the house and that\t Mohinderpal
\nalone  disposed of the dead body and that the confession  of
\nPalvinder  is wholly false and the advertisement  issued  in
\nMilap correctly reflected the facts
\n\t\t\t   101<\/span>
\nso  far\t as  she was concerned.\t The  evidence\tled  by\t the
\nprosecution,  however,\tis  of such  a\tcharacter  that\t no,
\nreliance  can be-placed\t  it and no affirmative\t conclusions
\ncan  be drawn from it.\tThe remarks of the  Sessions  Judge;
\nthat  the consequences had definitely revealed that  justice
\ncould  not  always be procured by wealth and  other  worldly
\nresources and that the case would perhaps go down in history
\nas one of the most sensational cases because of the  parties
\ninvolved  and  the  gruesome way”in  which  the\t murder\t was
\ncommitted,   disclose  a  frame\t of  mind  not\t necessarily
\njudicial.  It was unnecessary to introduce sentimentalism in
\na judicial decision.  The High Court was not able to reach a
\npositive  conclusion that Palvinder was responsible for\t the
\nmurder of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
\t Whether Jaspal committed suicide or died of poison
\ntaken under a mistake or whether poison was administared  to
\nhim  by the appellant or by Mohinderpal or by both  of\tthem
\nare questions the answers to which have been left very vague
\nand  indefinite by the circumstantial evidence in the  case.
\nIn  view  of the situation of the parties  and\tthe  belated
\ninvestigation  of the case and the sensation it created,  it
\nwas  absolutely necessary for the courts below to  safeguard
\nthem. selves against the danger of basing their\t conclusions
\nsuspicions  howsoever  strong.\tIt.  Seems to  us  that\t the
\ntrial  court, &Ad to a certain extent the High\tCourt,\tfell
\ninto the same error against which warning was given by Baron
\nAlderson in Beg. v. Hodge(1), where he said as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t     The  mind\twas  apt  to  take  a  pleasure\t in
\nadapting circumstances to one another, and even in straining
\nthem  a little, if need be, to force them to form  parts  of
\none connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of\t the
\nindividual,  the  more\tlikely\twas  it,  considering\tsuch
\nmatters,  to  overreach and mislead itself, to\tsupply\tsome
\nlittle\tlink that is wanting, to take for granted some\tfact
\nconsistent  with  its  previous theories  and  necessary  to
\nrender them complete.”\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (1838) 2 Lew. 227.\n<\/p>\n
102<\/span><\/p>\n
We  had\t recently  occasion  to\t emphasize  this  point\t  in
\nNargundkar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(1).\n<\/p>\n
       In order to establish the charge under section  201,
\nIndian Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an  offence
\nhas been committed-mere suspicion that it has been committed
\nis  not\t sufficient,that the accused knew or had  reason  to
\nbelieve\t that such offence had been committed- and with\t the
\nrequisite-knowledge  and  with\tthe  intent  to\t screen\t the
\noffender  from legal punishment causes the evidence  thereof
\nto  disappear  or gives false  information  respecting\tsuch
\noffences knowing or having reason to believe the same to  be
\nfalse.\t It  was essential in these  circumstances  for\t the
\nprosecution  to\t establish affirmatively that the  death  of
\nJaspal was caused by the administration of potassium cyanide
\nby some person (the appellant having been acquitted of\tthis
\ncharge)\t and that she had reason to believe that it  was  so
\ncaused\tand  with  that\t knowledge  she\t took  part  in\t the
\nconcealment  and  ‘disposal of the dead body.  There  is  no
\nevidence whatsoever   this point.  The following facts, that
\nJaspal\tdied,  that his body was found in a  trunk  and\t was
\ndiscovered  from a well and that the appellant took part  in
\nthe  disposal of the body do not establish the cause of\t his
\ndeath  or  the\tmanner and circumstances in  which  it\tcame
\nabout.\t As already stated, there is no direct\tevidence  to
\nprove that potassium cyanide was administered to him by\t any
\nperson.\t  The best evidence   this question would have\tbeen
\nthat of the doctor who performed the postmortem examination.
\nThat evidence does not prove that Jaspal died as a result of
\nadministration of potassium cyanide.\tthe other hand,\t the
\ndoctor\twas  of\t the opinion that  there  were\tno  positive
\npostmortem  signs which could suggest poisoning.  He  stated
\nthat potassium cyanide being corrosive poison, would produce
\nhypermia, softening and ulceration of the  gastro-intestinal
\ntrack  and  that  in this case he did not  notice  any\tsuch
\nsigns.\tHe further said that potassium cyanide corrodes\t the
\nlips and the mouth, and none of these signs was\t  the  body.
\nThis evidence
\n(1)  [1952] S.C.R, 1091
\n\t\t\t   103<\/span>
\ntherefore  instead  of\tproving that  death  was  caused  by
\nadministration of potassium cyanide, to the extent it. goes,
\nnegatives that fact.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court placed reliance\t the confession of Palvinder
\nmade   the 15th April, 1950, to bold this fact proved.\t The
\nconfession is in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
“My  husband Jaspal Singh was fond of hunting as well as  of
\nphotography.   From  hunting  whatever\tskins  (khalls)\t  he
\nbrought\t home  he became fond of colouring  them.   He\talso
\nbegan to do the work of washing of photos out of  eagerness.
\nOne  day in December, 1949, Jaspal Singh said to  my  cousin
\n(Tay’s\tson)  Mohinderpal  Singh to, get  him  material\t for
\nwashing photos.\t He(Mohinderpal Singh) said to Harnam Singh,
\nwho  is\t head clerk in Baldevnagar Camp, to bring  the\tsame
\nfrom,the  Cantt.   Harnam  Singh  went\tto  the\t Cantt.\t and
\nreturn\tsaid that the material for washing photos  could  be
\nhad  only by a responsible Government official.\t He told  so
\nto Mohinderpat Singh, who said that Harnam Singh should take
\nhis name and get the medicine.\tThereupon Harnam Singh\twent
\nto  the\t Cantt.\t and  brought  the  medicine.  I  kept\tthis
\nmedicine.\t As the medicine wassticking to the paper  I
\nput it in water in a\t small\tbottle\tand kept it  in\t the
\nalmirah.  In those days my husband was in Ambala and I lived
\nwith him in the kothi in the city.  He went for hunting\t for
\n2-3 days and there he developed abdominal trouble and  began
\nto  purge.   He sent for medicine 3-4 days  from  Dr.  Sohan
\nSingh.\tOne day I placed his medicine bottle in the  almirah
\nwhere  medicine, for washing photos had been placed.  I\t was
\nsitting outside and Jaspal Singh enquired from me where\t his
\nmedicine,  was.\t I told him that it was in the almirah.\t  By
\nmistake\t he took that medicine which was meant\tfor  washing
\nphotos.\t  At that time, he fell down and my little  son\t was
\nstanding  by his side.\tHe said ‘Mama, Papa had fallen’.   I
\nwent inside and saw, that he was in agony and in  short time
\nbe expired.  Thereafter I went to Mohinderpal Singh
\n104<\/span>
\nand told him all that  had happened.  He said that father of
\nJaspal\tSingh had arrived and that he should be\t ‘intimated.
\nBut  I\tdid not tell him, because his connections  were\t not
\ngood  with  his son and myself.\t Out of fear  I\t placed\t his
\ncorpse in a box and Mohinderpal Singh helped me in doing so.
\nFor  4-5  days the box remained in my kothi.   Thereafter  I
\nsaid to Mohinderpal Singh that if he did not help me I would
\ndie., He got removed that box from my kothi with the help of
\nmy  servants  and placing the same in his jeep went  to\t his
\nstore in Baldevnagar Camp and kept the same there.  That box
\nremained there for 8-10 days.  Thereafter one day I went  to
\nthe camp and from there got placed the trunk in the jeep and
\ngoing with Mohinderpal Singh I threw the same in a well near
\nChhat  Banur.  I do not remember the date when Jaspal  Singh
\ntook  the medicine by mistake.\tIt was perhaps\tin  January,
\n1950.”\n<\/p>\n
   The\tstatement  read\t as a whole is\tof  an\texculpatory
\ncharacter.   It does not suggest or prove the commission  of
\nany offence under the Indian Penal Code by any one.  It\t not
\nonly  exculpates her from the commission of an\toffence\t but
\nalso  exculpates Mohinderpal.  It states that the  death  of
\nJaspal\twas accidental.\t The statement does not amount to  a
\nconfession  and\t is thus inadmissible in evidence.   It\t was
\nobserved  by  their  Lordships\tof  the\t Privy\tCouncil\t  in
\nNarayanaswami  v. Emperor(1) that the word  “confession”  as
\nused  in the Evidence Act cannot be construed as  meaning  a
\nstatement  by  an accused suggesting the inference  that  he
\ncommitted  the\tcrime.\tA confession must  either  admit  in
\nterms  the  offence, or at any rate  substantially  all\t the
\n‘facts\twhich  constitute the offence.\tAn  admission  of  a
\ngravely\t   incriminating   fact,   even\t  a    conclusively,
\nincriminating  fact,  is  not of  itself  a  confession.   A
\nstatement  that\t contains  self-exculpatory  matter  ‘cannot
\namount\tto a confession, if the exculpatory statement is  of
\nsome fact, which if true, would negative the offence alleged
\nto be confessed.  In this view of the law the High Court
\n(1)  (1939) 66 I.A. 66; A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 47:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   105<\/span><\/p>\n
was  in error in treating the statement of Palvinder as\t the
\nmost  important piece of evidence in support of\t the  charge
\nunder  section 201, Indian Penal’ Code.\t The learned  Judges
\nin  one\t part  of  their  judgment  observed  that  strictly
\nspeaking exculpatory statements in which the prisoner denies
\nher  guilt cannot be regarded as confessions, but went\t  to
\nsay  that such statements are often used  as  circumstantial
\nevidence of guilty consciousness by showing them to be false
\nand fabricated.\t With great respect we have not been able,to
\nfollow\tthe  meaning of these observations and\tthe  learned
\ncounsel appearing at the Bar for the prosecution was  unable
\nto   explain  what  these  words  exactly  indicated.\t The
\nstatement not being a confession and being of an exculpatory
\nnature\tin which the guilt had been denied by the  prisoner,
\nit  could not be used as evidence in the case to  prove\t her
\nguilt.\n<\/p>\n
    Not\t only was the High Court in error in  treating\tthe
\nalleged confession of Palvinder as evidence in the case\t but
\nit  was\t further in error in accepting a part  of  it  after
\nfinding\t that  the rest of it was false.  It said  that\t the
\nstatement that the deceased took poison by mistake should be
\nruled out of consideration for the simple reason that if the
\ndeceased  had  taken poison by mistake the  conduct  of\t the
\nparties\t would have been completely different, and that\t she
\nwould have then run to his side and raised a hue and cry and
\nwould  have  sent immediately for medical aid, that  it\t was
\nincredible that if the deceased had taken poison by mistake,
\nhis  wife Would have,stood idly by and allowed him  to\tdie.
\nThe  court  thus  accepted  the\t inculpatory  part  of\tthat
\nstatement and rejected the exculpatory part.  In doing so it
\ncontravened  the  well accepted\t rule regarding the  use  of
\nconfession and admission that these must either be  accepted
\nas a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is\t not
\ncompetent   to\taccept\tonly  the  inculpatory\tpart   while
\nrejecting  the\texculpatory part as  inherently\t incredible.
\nReference in this connection may be made to the observations
\nof the Full Bench of the Allahabad
\n106<\/span>
\n    High  Court\t in  Emperor v.\t Balmakund(1),\twith  which
\nobservations   we  fully  concur.   The\t  confession   there
\ncomprised of two elements, (a) an account of how the accused
\nkilled\tthe  women, and (b) an account of  his\treasons\t for
\ndoing  so,  the\t former element being  inculpatory  and\t the
\nlatter\texculpatory  and the question referred to  the\tFull
\nBench  was:  Can  the court if it is  of  opinion  that\t the
\ninculpatory part commends belief and the exculpatory part is
\ninherently incredible, act upon the former and refuse to act
\nupon  the  latter ? The answer -to the\treference  was\tthat
\nwhere there is no other evidence to show affirmatively\tthat
\nany portion of the exculpatory element in the confession  is
\nfalse,\tthe court must accept or reject the confession as  a\n<\/p>\n
-whole and cannot accept only the inculpatory element  while
\nrejecting the exculpatory  element as inherently incredible.
\nThe  alleged  confession  of  Palvinder\t is  wholly  of\t an’
\nexculpatory nature and does not admit the commission, of any
\ncrime  whatsoever.  The suspicious circumstances from  which
\nan inference of guilt would be drawn were contained in\tthat
\npart  of the statement which concerned the disposal  of\t the
\ndead body.  This part of the statement could not be used  as
\nevidence  by  holding that the first part which\t was  of  an
\nexculpatory  character was false when there was no  evidence
\nto  prove that it was so, and the only material\t   which  it
\ncould  be  so hold was the conduct mentioned in\t the  latter
\npart  of  the same statement and stated to  be\tinconsistent
\nwith the earlier part of the confession.\n<\/p>\n
The  result  therefore is that no use can be  made  of\t the
\nstatement  made\t by Palvinder and contained in\tthe  alleged
\nconfession  and\t which the High Court thought was  the\tmost
\nimportant  piece of evidence in -the case to prove that\t the
\ndeath of Jaspal was caused by poisoning or as a result of an
\noffence\t having\t been committed.  Once\tthis  confession  is
\nexcluded  altogether, there remains no evidence for  holding
\nthat Jaspal died as a result of the administration of potas-
\nsium cyanide.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (193o) I.L.R. 52 All. 101.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   107<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The  circumstantial evidence referred to  by\tthe
\nHigh  Court  which according to it tends to  establish\tthat
\nJaspal\tdid  not die a natural death is\t of  the’  following
\nnature:\t That Palvinder and Mohinderpal had a motive to\t get
\nrid of the deceased as -she was carrying-  with Mohinderpal.
\nThe  motive,  even if proved in the case, cannot  prove\t the
\ncircumstances  under  which Jaspal died or the\tcause  which
\nresulted  in his death. – That Mohinderpal was proved to  be
\nin possession of a quantity of potassium cyanide and was  in
\na  position  to\t administer it to the  deceased\t is  a\tcir-
\ncumstance  of  a  neutral  character.\tMere  possession  of
\npotassium cyanide by Mohinderpal without its being traced in
\nthe  body  of  Jaspal cannot establish that  his  death\t was
\ncaused by this deadly poison.  In any case, the circumstance
\nis not of a character which is wholly incompatible with\t the
\ninnocence of the appellant.  The other evidence referred  to
\nby  the\t High  Court as corroborating  the  latter  part  of
\nPalvinder’s alleged confession in the view of the case\tthat
\nwe have taken does not require any discussion because if the
\nconfession–is inadmissible, no question of corroborating it
\narises.\n<\/p>\n
\t   Mr.\tSethi argued that the statements  contained
\nin  the\t alleged  confession are  contradicted\trather\tthan
\ncorroborated by the evidence led by the prosecution and that
\nthe confession is proved to be untrue.\tIt is unnecessary to
\ndiscuss\t this matter in the view that we have taken  of\t the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
      The result, therefore, is that we are constrained\t to
\nhold that there is no material, direct or indirect, for\t the
\nfinding\t reached by the High Court that the death of  Jaspal
\nwascaused by the administration of potassium cyanide. If  we
\nbelieve\t the defence version his death was the result of  an
\naccident.   If that version is disbelieved,then there is  no
\nproof  as to the cause of his death.  The method and  manner
\nin which the dead body of Jaspal was dealt with and disposed
\nof   raise some suspicion but from these, facts\t a  positive
\nconclusion cannot be reached that he died an unnatural death
\nnecessarily, Cases are not unknown
\n108<\/span>
\nwhere  death- is accidental and the accused has acted  in  a
\npeculiar manner regarding the disposal of the dead body\t for
\nreasons\t best known to himself.\t One of them might  well  be
\nthat  he  was afraid of a false case being  started  against
\nhim.  Life and liberty of persons cannot be put in  jeopardy
\nmere  suspicions,  howsoever strong, and they  can  only  be
\ndeprived  of these   the basis of definite proof.   In\tthis
\ncase,  as  found by the High Court, not only were  the\tSub-
\nInspector   of\tpolice\tand  police  constables\t and   other
\nwitnesses   guilty  of\ttelling\t deliberate  lies  but\t the
\nprosecution was blameworthy in introducing witnesses in\t the
\ncase  to support their lies and that being so, we feel\tthat
\nit  would be unsafe to convict the appellant   the  material
\nthat  is  left after eliminating the  perjured,,  false\t and
\ninadmissible evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t For the reasons given above we allow this  appeal,
\nset aside the conviction of the appellant under section 201,
\nIndian Penal Code, and acquit her of that charge also.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent  for  the appellant: Sardar Bahadur.   Agent  for\t the
\nrespondent:  P.A.  Mehta. ,Agent for the  caveator:  Harbans
\nSingh.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 354, 1952 SCR 94 Author: M C Mahajan Bench: Mahajan, Mehr Chand PETITIONER: PALVINDER KAUR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB(RUP SINGH-Caveator) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/10\/1952 BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND AIYAR, […]<\/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-77140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPalvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - 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\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-01T13:37:05+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T13:37:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\"},\"wordCount\":4408,\"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\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\",\"name\":\"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-01T13:37:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - 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\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-01T13:37:05+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952","datePublished":"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T13:37:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952"},"wordCount":4408,"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\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952","name":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-01T13:37:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palvinder-kaur-vs-the-state-of-punjabrup-on-22-october-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup … on 22 October, 1952"}]},{"@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\/77140","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=77140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77140\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}