{"id":78810,"date":"2009-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-27T18:35:12","modified_gmt":"2017-07-27T13:05:12","slug":"harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nCr Appeal No. 11 OF 2008 AND Conf No. 4 OF 2008    \n1. Harjeet Singh\n2. State\nPetitioners\n1. State\n2. Harjeet Singh and anr\nRespondent  \n!Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate\n^Mr. P. C. Sharma, AAG  \n\nMR. JUSTICE HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN, JUDGE.        \nMR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE.    \nDate: 24\/08\/2009 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
J.P.Singh-J
\n       Sentenced to Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.
\n5000\/-,       under       Section        302      RPC,        besides        to
\nImprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000\/- under
\nSection 452 RPC, And to, two years imprisonment and
\nfine of Rs. 2000\/- under Section 4\/25 of the Arms Act,
\nfor committing the murder of Kuldeep Kumar Badyal,
\nPrincipal Government Boys Higher Secondary School,
\nGandhi Nagar, Jammu, the appellant, Harjeet Singh,
\n                                   2<\/span>
\nthe appellant, has filed this appeal seeking setting aside
\nof his conviction and sentence, ordered vide judgment
\nof March 18, 2008 and order of                     March 19, 2008
\nrespectively, of the learned Second Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Jammu, herein after to be referred as the ‘trial
\ncourt’, for short.\n<\/p>\n
      Facts necessary for disposal of the appellant’s
\nCriminal Appeal and Confirmation Reference no. 4\/2008
\nof the trial court, may be stated, in brief, thus:-
\nFACTS:\n<\/p>\n
      PW1, Rajinder Singh, the Vice Principal of the
\nGovernment Boys Higher Secondary School, Gandhi
\nNagar, Jammu, delivered his complaint to the Police
\nStation Gandhi Nagar, Jammu through PW 12, Madan
\nLal, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “To
\n                  The Station House Officer,
\n                  Police Station Gandhi Nagar,
\n                  Jammu.<\/p>\n
                  Sir,
\n                  Respectfully, I have to state as :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a)   Today at about 11.15 AM, two sikh youth aged
\n                  about 26 years and 20 years, one of them
\n                  named Mr. Deepinder Singh, came to me, when
\n                  I was teaching 11th Class Section A with the plea
\n                  to issue a certificate certifying that Deepinder
\n                  Singh has performed required numbers of
\n                  practicals in Physics and Chemistry for 12th
\n                  class.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
                        I told them to approach the board
\n                 authorities for necessary permission, as his
\n                 application has already been submitted to Joint
\n                 Secretary board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b)    At about 1.35 P.M. same two youth appeared in
\n                 the Principal’s Chamber in very furious mood
\n                 and demanded the requisite certificate without
\n                 getting any sanction from board. There were
\n                 heated exchanges between the Principal, myself
\n                 and Sikh youths in the office Chamber in
\n                 presence of Subash Jamwal office clerk of the
\n                 School.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c)    We came out of the office along with the youths
\n                 in the Varanda with exchanges.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        In the meantime, these two youths ran
\n                 away from the school, one of them Harjeet Singh
\n                 age about 26 years appeared on spot with sharp
\n                 edge weapon and attacked the Principal Sahib,
\n                 who became unconscious, fell down and was
\n                 taken to GMC by the staff members on auto,
\n                 being in old age and Cancer patient could not
\n                 bear the scene and went away.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 It is therefore requested that necessary
\n          investigation may kindly be initiated under law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                              Yours faithfully\n                                              ( Rajinder Singh )\n          Dated: 3.2.99                             (V. Principal)\n                                              Sr. Lect. Physics\n                                              Gandhi Nagar.\"\n<\/pre>\n
     FIR no. 54\/1999 was, accordingly, registered on
\nthe aforementioned complaint, under Sections 307, 452,
\n332, 34 RPC and 4\/25 of the Arms Act at Police Station
\nGandhi Nagar, Jammu.  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After completion of the investigation, a Final Police
\nReport, was laid with the Chief Judicial Magistrate
\nJammu, indicating commission of offences punishable
\nunder Sections 302, 333, 452, 34 R.P.C read with
\nSection 4\/25 of the Arms Act, by the appellant and
\n                             4<\/span>
\nunder Sections 302, 452, 333, 34 RPC by one Deep
\nInder Singh, in committing the murder of Kuldeep
\nKumar Badyal, with a Butcher’s hatchet, called “Toka”
\nin local dialect.\n<\/p>\n
      Finding prima facie case for trial, the appellant and
\nDeep Inder Singh were charged, for commission of the
\noffences indicated hereinabove, by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      Denying the charge, the appellant and his
\nco- accused claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
      In order to sustain the charge, the prosecution
\nexamined 33 out of 39 witnesses listed in the Final
\nPolice Report.\n<\/p>\n
      Denying the incriminating circumstances appearing
\nin the prosecution evidence, the appellant and his co-
\naccused put up the plea of total denial of the incident
\nopting not to lead any evidence in defence.\n<\/p>\n
      After appreciating the prosecution evidence and
\nthe material placed on the records, the trial Court
\nacquitted    Deep   Inder   Singh    but    convicted   and
\nsentenced the appellant as indicated at the threshold.\n<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
      Questioning the judgment and order of the trial
\nCourt, the appellant’s learned counsel urged as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
APPELLANT’S COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n
     1. Prosecution      having    failed   to    lead  any
\n        evidence to prove that the appellant had hit
\n        the deceased at his office with a Toka, his
\n        conviction and sentence was unwarranted,
\n        particularly when almost all the prosecution
\n        witnesses,     in   unambiguous        terms,   had
\n        refused to identify the appellant as the same
\n        sikh boy, who had attacked the Principal on
\n        the day of occurrence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. The statement of PW-1, Rajinder Singh, was
\n        un-worthy of credence, in that, his presence
\n        on spot at the time of the occurrence has not
\n        been proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. The attesting witnesses to EXPW\/VP, the
\n        appellant’s    alleged    Disclosure     Statement,
\n        having     not    supported      the    prosecution
\n        regarding appellant’s making the disclosure
\n        statement leading to the recovery of Toka, the
\n        trial court erred in relying upon the Disclosure
\n        Statement and the recovery of Toka made
\n        pursuant     thereto,   on    the   basis    of  the
\n        statement of PW-39, Yash Pal Bakshi, the
\n                               6<\/span>
\n        Investigating Police Officer, which could not
\n        be    relied    upon,    in  absence      of  any
\n        corroboration thereto, being the statement of
\n        the Police Officer interested in success of the
\n        prosecution case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. The investigating agency having failed to hold
\n        any Test Identification Parade for identification
\n        of the appellant, during investigation of the
\n        case, the statement of PW-1 could not be
\n        believed, in view of the admitted case of the
\n        prosecution that the witness had neither seen
\n        the appellant before the occurrence nor would
\n        he know his name or other particulars for his
\n        identification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Suffering    from   tainted   investigation,  and
\n        based on ante-timed FIR, the prosecution
\n        case was liable to be rejected when the
\n        prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s
\n        motive for commission of the offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
STATE ADVOCATE’S SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n
     The    learned     Additional  Advocate      General
\nsubmitted that the evidence and the material
\nproduced in the case by the prosecution was
\nsufficient    enough     to   sustain    the   appellant’s
\n                              7<\/span>
\nconviction    and   sentence,     notwithstanding   the
\nprosecution witnesses’ resilience from a part of their
\nstatements    made under Section 161           Cr.P.C.,
\nregarding, identification of the appellant. According
\nto the State counsel, the statement of PW-1,
\nsupported by EXPW-RS, his written FIR, has proved,
\nbeyond any reasonable doubt that it was the
\nappellant and appellant alone, who was responsible
\nfor the murder of the Principal. There was no need to
\nhold     any   Test   Identification   Parade    during
\ninvestigation of the case, because according to the
\nevidence led in the case, it has been proved beyond
\nany shadow of reasonable doubt that PW-1 had
\nseen the appellant thrice on the day of the
\noccurrence in the school and had thereafter
\nidentified him in the Court as the same person who
\nhad attacked the Principal in his office, says the
\nlearned counsel. Absence of motive, according to
\nthe counsel was not fatal to the prosecution case, in
\nview of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt of India in this respect. According to him, the
\n                            8<\/span>
\nstatement of the Investigating Police Officer is
\nworthy of credence and cannot be dis-believed
\nmerely because he happens to be a police officer, in
\nthe absence of any infirmity appearing therein.
\n    We have considered the submissions of learned
\ncounsel for the parties and gone through the
\nstatements of the witnesses and the other material
\navailable on the records.\n<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION
\n    We do not want to burden this judgment by
\nreproduction of the statements of all the prosecution
\nwitnesses, resume whereof is contained in the
\njudgment of the trial court, and shall refer to the
\nstatements of the witnesses, wherever necessary to
\ndeal with the appellant’s Appeal and the submissions
\nmade by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
     The prosecution had citied PW-2 Ramesh Lal,
\nPW-4 Gurcharan Singh, PW-5 Subash Singh, PW-6
\nMst. Ravinder Kour, PW-7 Mst. Savita Sharma, PW-
\n8 Mst. Reeta Sharma and PW-9 Mst. Manjit Kour,
\nbesides PW-1 Rajinder Singh as eye witnesses to
\n                             9<\/span>
\nthe occurrence; but while appearing in the Court,
\nthese witnesses, barring PW-1 Rajinder Singh, had
\nrefused to identify the appellant and his co-accused
\nas the same Sikh boys who visited the school and
\nthe Principal on the day of the occurrence.
\n    Perusal of their statements, however, reveals
\nthat some facts disclosed by these witnesses, have
\nremained      unchallenged      during    their cross-
\nexamination. The facts so revealed, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     1. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Badyal, the Principal and
\n        PW-1 Rajinder Singh, the Vice Principal of
\n        the Government Boys Higher Secondary
\n        School, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, were present
\n        in the school on 03.02.1999 along with all the
\n        witnesses cited by the prosecution as eye
\n        witnesses to the occurrence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Two Sikh boys were demanding issuance of
\n        a certificate for having completed practical
\n        from the Principal in his office Chamber.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. One of the Sikh boy, having a Toka in his
\n        hand, was seen running from the school
\n        towards the road.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. The Principal died in the hospital, of the
\n        injuries sustained in the chamber.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
      In the background of the aforementioned facts,
\nthe statement of PW1-Rajinder Singh needs to be
\nexamined in detail.\n<\/p>\n
      PW1- Rajinder Singh, says in his statement that
\nhe was posted as Vice Principal of the Government
\nBoys Higher Secondary School Gandhi Nagar,
\nJammu on 3.2.1999, when at about 11 a.m. the
\nappellant and Deep Inder Singh, whom he identified
\nin the Court, had come to him           demanding a
\ncertificate regarding completion of the practical in
\nPhysics and Chemistry subjects, when he was
\ndelivering lecture in the class room, to which he
\nreplied that the application had been forwarded to
\nthe Board of School Education. They thereafter left
\nthe class but again appeared in the school at about
\n1.30 p.m. By that time the Principal of the school,
\ntoo, had reached his room. They informed the
\nPrincipal that according to the Board officials, he was
\ncompetent to issue the certificate and, accordingly,
\ndemanded the certificate from him. They were
\nvigorously thumping the table lying in the Principal’s
\n                            11<\/span>
\nroom. The Principal told them that let us ask the
\nBoard officials in this behalf and saying this the
\nPrincipal got up from his seat. The prosecution
\nwitnesses Subash Singh and Darshan Lal, too, were
\nin the Principal’s room at that time. The accused,
\nhowever, came arguing out of the Principal’s room.
\nTilak Raj and Subash Singh took them out of the
\nschool gate. In the meanwhile, Mrs. PW-Ravinder
\nKour, who had gone to the Bank to get salary, too
\ncame back informing that the appellant was having a
\nToka in his hand and that they should run away. The
\nappellant, however, in the meanwhile, appeared
\nthere and started arguing with the Principal. Being a
\ncancer patient he ran away and could not see
\nanything thereafter. He had, however, seen the
\nappellant lifting the weapon in his hand upwards.
\nGetting frightened, he bolted himself in a room in the
\nschool. He came out of the room only after about two
\nhours to see that the public was there to inform that
\nthe Principal had breathed his last in the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
EXPW-RS\/1, written by him was thereafter lodged in
\nthe Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
     While under cross-examination, he says that
\nthe deliberations, which had taken place at 1.35 p.m,
\ncontinued for about 15\/20 minutes whereafter at
\nabout 2 p.m, PWs-Tilak Raj and Subash took the
\naccused out of the school gate. The Appellant
\nentered the school alone with the weapon at about
\n2.15 p.m. He had seen the occurrence for about 3\/4
\nminutes only. He came out of his room where he had
\nbolted himself only after one and a half hour to lodge
\nthe complaint that the Principal had died. He had
\ndrafted the complaint after about 10\/15 minutes of
\nhis coming out of the room. He would not know as to
\nhow much time PW-Madan Lal had taken to carry
\nthe complaint to the Police Station, which had been
\ngiven to him at 4 p.m. PW-Ravinder Kour was not
\npresent when the complaint had been drafted. He
\nhad been working in the school for the last two years
\nand during this period Harjeet Singh did not remain
\nhis student. He did not know Harjeet Singh
\n                           13<\/span>
\npersonally and had seen him for the first time on the
\nday of the occurrence and would not know his name
\nbefore that. He was unaware as to whether anyone
\npresent there revealed the appellant’s name to him
\nor was it someone from the public or a teacher of the
\nschool, who had revealed the appellant’s name.
\nAfter the occurrence he had seen the appellant for
\nthe first time in the Court. He however, saw the
\nphotographs of the appellant and Deep Inder Singh
\non the second day of the occurrence, when these
\nhad appeared in the news paper. No identification
\nparade, for the identification of the accused was
\nconducted. He had not indicated Toka as weapon of
\nthe offence in the FIR, which was, however,
\nindicated as a sharp edged weapon in the report.\n<\/p>\n
     Before dealing with the appellant’s counsel’s
\nsubmissions, reference to the statements of some
\nmore prosecution witnesses, which may be relevant
\nto deal with the submissions made at the Bar,
\nbecomes necessary.\n<\/p>\n
                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
      PW-29 Dr. Anayatullah Shiekh, on conducting
\nthe autopsy had found the following injuries on the
\nperson of Kuldeep Kumar Badyal. These read as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
        1. Incised chopped wound from left angle of mouth to
\n            the angle of mandible on left side 11 c.m. x 1 c.m.
\n            and deep into the oral cavity, cutting soft tissues left
\n            upper and central incisors. The fractured remnants of
\n            the teeth as produced by the I.O. were corroborated
\n            with the body-injury and found to have been
\n            separated from the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2. Incised chopped wound on left lateral aspect of
\n            scalp, cutting of the posterior third of external ear 11
\n            c.m. x 1 c.m., cutting the underlined bones and brain
\n            substance. It was deep interiorly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3. Incised chopped wound on the right lateral side of
\n            occipital region. The flap was directed towards the
\n            nape of neck of 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. The underlying bone
\n            was fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4. Incised chopped wound on the right arm and fore-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            arm on lateral aspects across the elbow 24 c.m. x 3
\n            c.m. underlying bones cut and fractured into multiple
\n            pieces.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        5. Incised wound on the right wrist on the lateral aspect
\n            5 c.m. x 3 c.m. underlying muscles tendence and
\n            blood vessels were cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6. Incised wound on the right wrist 5 c.m. x 3 c.m., 3
\n            c.m. above the injury No.5. The soft tissue and bones
\n            were cut underneath.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7. Incised wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. on front of the left elbow
\n            3 c.m. x 2 c.m.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        8. An incised chopped wound on the left elbow on the
\n            lateral aspect 3cm x 2 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        9. An incised wound on the left side of the chest in the
\n            posterior axillaries 3cm x 1cm into muscle deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        10. Contusions on the left ankle on the posterior aspect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      According to Dr. Anayatullah Shiekh, the cause
\nof the Principal’s death was hemorrhage and shock
\nas a result of the multiple injuries caused by a sharp
\ncutting weapon. The time since death, according to
\n                              15<\/span>
\nhim, was about one hour. The Post Mortem Report,
\nEXPW-AS,          and   the    certificate  EXPW-AS-1
\nindicating that the Toka produced before him by the
\npolice could possibly cause the injuries found on the
\nperson of the deceased, were admitted to have been
\nissued by him.\n<\/p>\n
      PW-27, H.C.Bhagat, Scientific Officer, Forensic
\nScience Laboratory Jammu, testifies to have issued
\nEXPW-KKP,       his   report,    after   conducting the
\nchemical and morphological examination of the
\narticles which he had received in the Laboratory on
\n8.2.1999 from the Sub Divisional Police Officer, City
\nSouth, Jammu, which, pursuant to his examination,
\nhad indicated presence of human blood of AB group
\non, (1) Exhibit K-416\/99, the Toka with wooden
\nhandle, seized in the case, (2) Exhibits K-425\/99
\nand K-426\/99, the cream coloured shirt and blue
\ncoloured pant of the appellant, and (4) Exhibit K-
\n436\/99, the blood of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      PW-39,    Yashpal    Bakshi      has  proved  the
\nDisclosure Statement made by the accused to him,
\n                             16<\/span>
\nthe recovery of the weapon of offence, the seizure of
\nthe clothes of the appellant, the site plan, the seizure
\nof the parts of the body of the deceased, i.e., a piece
\nof the ear and a tooth, from the place of occurrence
\nbesides the documents which were prepared by him
\nduring investigation of the case. According to him
\nthere was no need to hold the Test Identification
\nParade because the employees of the school and
\nothers would know the accused. Appellant, Harjeet
\nSingh had made disclosure about the weapon of
\noffence when, after arrest, he was being carried in a
\nvehicle to the Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
      Perusal of the statement of PW-1, Rajinder
\nSingh, reveals, that his testimony to the facts
\nappearing hereunder, has remained un-challenged
\nduring his cross-examination. These facts are as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
            1. Appellant Harjeet Singh along with the
\n               co-accused came to the school firstly
\n               at about 11.a.m, when they had met
\n               him in a class room of the Government
\n               Boys    Higher    Secondary       School,
\n                              17<\/span>
\n               Gandhi Nagar, Jammu where he was
\n               delivering lecture to the students, and
\n               for the second time at about 1.35 p.m
\n               in the Principal’s room. Third time, it
\n               was appellant Harjeet Singh alone,
\n               who came to the Principal’s room at
\n               about 2 p.m with a Toka in his hand.
\n               He had seen him lifting the Toka
\n               upwards whereafter he got frightened
\n               and ran away therefrom to bolt himself
\n               in a room.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The sequence of the events, given by all those
\nprosecution witnesses, who were cited as eye
\nwitnesses to the occurrence, but have refused to
\nidentify the appellant in the court as the same person
\nwho had attacked the Principal, are the facts
\nindicating the occasions, cause and the effect of the
\nrelevant facts necessary to determine as to whether
\nor not it was the appellant who had attacked the
\nPrincipal of the School on 3.2.1999 with a Toka, as a
\nresult whereof he succumbed to the injuries received
\nin the incident.\n<\/p>\n
      The statement of these witnesses corroborate
\nthe version of the incident as narrated by PW 1-\n<\/p>\n
                             18<\/span><\/p>\n
Rajidner Singh, both in his statement in the Court as
\nalso in his written report to the police, on the day of
\nthe    occurrence,    barring,  however,    appellant’s
\nidentification as the same person who had attacked
\nthe Principal on the day of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
            It is no doubt true that none of the
\nprosecution witnesses have deposed to their having
\nactually seen the appellant hitting the deceased with
\na Toka on the day of occurrence, yet the sequence
\nof events narrated by these witnesses, rule out
\ncompletely the possibility of some one else’s, other
\nthan the appellant, attacking the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      The appellants’ act of having lifted the Toka to
\nattack the Principal, having been witnessed by PW-1
\nRajinder Singh, the running of a Sikh boy from the
\nschool with a Toka in his hand, and the teachers and
\nother employees, present in the school at that time,
\nfinding the Principal in an injured condition having
\nreceived injuries with sharp edged weapon, after the
\nexit of the Sikh boy from the school with a Toka in
\nhis hand, lead to the only conclusion that it was the
\n                           19<\/span>
\nappellant and the appellant alone, who was the
\nauthor of the injuries found on the person of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
      According to PW 1 Rajinder Singh, the only
\nperson who was LAST SEEN in the Principal’s room
\nwas the appellant with a Toka in his raised hand to
\nattack the Principal. The Principal was immediately
\nthereafter found having injuries with sharp edged
\nweapon in the school by all those who were present
\nthere. These circumstances, taken together, amply
\ndemonstrate that it was the appellant and appellant
\nalone, who had injured the deceased with the Toka
\nin his hand and none else.\n<\/p>\n
      The first plea of the appellant’s learned
\ncounsel, that the prosecution had failed to lead
\nevidence that the appellant had hit the deceased at
\nhis office with a Toka, cannot, thus, be sustained
\nbecause the course of events narrated by the
\nprosecution witnesses and the appellant having
\nbeen seen last with the Principal with an attacking
\nmood and having a Toka in his hand, immediately
\n                             20<\/span>
\nwhereafter the Principal was found having injuries
\nwith sharp edged weapon, proved beyond any
\nreasonable shadow of doubt that it was the appellant
\nand none else who was responsible for causing the
\ninjuries on the person of the Principal.\n<\/p>\n
      The second ground of the attack to the
\nimpugned judgment and order in question, too, is
\nfound to be without any substance, in that, PW-1
\nRajinder Singh’s statement is found worthy of
\ncredence and his presence on spot at the time of
\noccurrence has been duly proved by the prosecution
\nfrom the statement of all the eye witnesses who
\nhave, in unambiguous terms, stated         about his
\npresence in the school on the day of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
      Coming to the third submission of appellant’s
\nlearned counsel, it is found that the attesting
\nwitnesses to the Disclosure statement have not
\nsupported the making of the statement by the
\nappellant, as indicated in EXPW\/VP and the
\nrecovery of Toka at the instance of the appellant,
\npursuant to the making of the Disclosure statement,
\n                            21<\/span>
\nyet the factum of appellant’s having made the
\nDisclosure statement and got the weapon of offence
\nrecovered from a place which he alone knew, is
\nproved by the Investigating Police Officer, who had
\ndrawn the Disclosure Statement and the Seizure
\nMemo. The trend of the cross-examination of the
\nInvestigating Police Officer indicates that he has not
\nbeen questioned by the appellant as to appellant’s
\nmaking the Disclosure Statement and recovery of
\nthe weapon of offence pursuant thereto. We do not
\nfind any material in the cross-examination of the
\ninvestigating Police Officer to discredit him on the
\nquestion of appellant’s having made disclosure to
\nhim and his recovering the weapon of offence
\npursuant thereto.\n<\/p>\n
     Merely because PW-39 is a Police Officer,
\nwould not render his statement suspicious, as
\nsought to be projected by the appellant’s learned
\ncounsel, in that, a Police Officer too is a competent
\nwitness and his statement cannot be brushed aside
\nmerely because he is a Police Officer entrusted with
\n                             22<\/span>
\nthe duty to investigate the crime, UNLESS proved to
\nbe otherwise unacceptable for one or the other
\nreasons. The status of a witness as a police officer
\nwould not, of itself, affect the acceptance of his
\nstatement because the law in force does not
\ncontemplate any distinction in the statement of a
\npolice officer or for that matter of a civilian. It is only
\na rule of caution that while appreciating the
\nstatements of the Police Officers, investigating a
\ncrime, that the courts have to be careful in accepting
\nthe statement, as is required to be done in case of
\ninterested witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
      After going through the statement of the
\nInvestigating Police Officer, we have not been able
\nto find any such material therein, on the basis
\nwhereof the making of Disclosure Statement by the
\nappellant and seizure of the weapon of offence at his
\ninstance be doubted. The third submission made by
\nappellant’s learned counsel, too therefore, fails and
\nis accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
      We do not find merit in even the fourth
\nsubmission of appellant’s learned counsel, in that, no
\nTest Identification Parade was required to be
\nconducted for the identification of the appellant, as
\nPW-1 Rajinder Singh had seen the appellant in the
\nbroad day light, not only once but thrice on the day
\nof the occurrence in the school and had further
\nidentified him when his photograph appeared in the
\nNewspaper on the second day of the occurrence.
\nThe capacity of the witness to identify the appellant
\nas the same person who was seen by him with a
\nToka in his hand in the Principal’s room, having not
\nbeen questioned in the cross-examination, we do not
\nfind any difficulty in accepting his statement, holding
\nthat there was no need to carry out any Test
\nIdentification Parade in the case as the appellant
\nstood properly identified by PW-1 Rajinder Singh, as
\nthe same person who had come to the school, met
\nhim when he was delivering lecture in the class room
\nand     was possessing a Toka in his hand while
\n                              24<\/span>
\narguing with the Principal in his office chamber, on
\nthe day of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
      Coming to the last submission of the appellant’s
\ncounsel, although we find that the police has anti-
\ntimed the FIR reflecting it to have been lodged at 2
\np.m., when it is stated to have reached the Police
\nStation after 4 p.m., but that, by itself would not, in
\nour opinion, affect, in any way, the veracity of the
\nprosecution case because of the unnecessary anti-
\ntiming of the FIR by the over zealousness of the
\nofficer, in indicating the FIR to have been made at 2
\np.m., rather than at 4 p.m. to demonstrate its prompt
\nlodging, avoiding criticism which the police officers
\nusually face for omitting to lodge police reports with
\npromptitude.\n<\/p>\n
      Even     otherwise,   there  is  no  reason    to
\ndisbelieve the prosecution story, as indicated in the
\nFIR, for, what we find from the records, is, that the
\nSpecial Report under Section 157 Cr. P. C., in the
\ncase, had reached the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n                            25<\/span>
\nJammu, on the second day of the occurrence, i.e.,
\n04.02.1999, without any loss of time.\n<\/p>\n
     The motive of the appellant to kill the Principal,
\nfor   the  latter’s  refusal   to  issue     certificate
\ndemonstrating completion of practical in Physics and
\nChemistry for the 12th Class by the appellant’s co-
\naccused, Deep Inder Singh, too stands proved from
\nthe statements of the cited eye witnesses and PW-1
\nRajinder Singh.\n<\/p>\n
     That apart, the appellant has not tendered any
\nexplanation about the presence of the blood on the
\nclothes which he was wearing at the time of his
\narrest and which were found smeared with blood, of
\nthe group of the deceased as proved by PW-27,
\nH.C. Bhagat by his Report EXPW-KKP.\n<\/p>\n
     Another piece of evidence produced by the
\nprosecution in the case, indicating the blood of the
\nsame group as that of the deceased, on the Toka
\nrecovered at the instance of the appellant, pursuant
\nto his Disclosure Statement, has remained un-
\nexplained by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                           26<\/span><\/p>\n
     In view of the above discussion, we are of the
\nview that the prosecution has successfully proved its
\ncase from the statement of its witnesses and the
\nmaterial placed on the records, proving that it was
\nthe appellant, and none else, who had struck the
\ndeceased Principal at his office chamber on
\n03.02.1999 at about 2 p.m., as a result whereof, he
\nsuccumbed to the injuries, which he had received at
\nthe hands of the appellant with a Toka seized in the
\ncase, which according to PW-29 Dr. Anayatullah
\nSheikh, could have caused the injuries found on the
\nperson of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     Finding no sustainable reason or ground to dis-
\nbelieve the statement of PW-1 Rajinder Singh, which
\nfinds support and corroboration from the statements
\nof other prosecution witnesses, and the material
\nplaced on the records, we uphold the findings and
\nthe conviction recorded by the trial court against the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, confirming the sentence proposed
\nby the trial court and allowing the Confirmation
\n                            27<\/span>
\nReference, we would dismiss the appellant’s appeal,
\ndirecting the Registrar Judicial to send a copy of this
\njudgment, under the seal of the Court, to the trial
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
             (J. P. Singh)   ( Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain)
\n                    Judge                    Judge
\nJAMMU:\n<\/p>\n
24.08 .2009
\nTilak, Secy.\n<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. Cr Appeal No. 11 OF 2008 AND Conf No. 4 OF 2008 1. Harjeet Singh 2. State Petitioners 1. State 2. Harjeet Singh and anr Respondent !Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Veenu Gupta, Advocate […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - 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\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-27T13:05:12+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-27T13:05:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4541,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-27T13:05:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - 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\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-27T13:05:12+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-27T13:05:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009"},"wordCount":4541,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009","name":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-27T13:05:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjeet-singh-vs-state-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harjeet Singh vs State on 24 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/78810","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=78810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}