{"id":9938,"date":"2002-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-15T00:13:15","modified_gmt":"2016-05-14T18:43:15","slug":"ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  627 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRANJIT SINGH @ JITA AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2002 Supp(2) SCR 247<\/p>\n
The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n
Six accused, including the four appellants, were forwarded by the Police to
\nthe concerned court to stand trial for offences under various provisions of
\nI.P.C., The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in short
\n‘the TADA Act’) and The Arms Act. One of them (Gurbachan Singh) was
\ndeclared proclaimed offender. Another (Jagmail Singh) died. The remaining
\nfour, namely appellants were convicted for the offences for which they were
\ntried. For offences under Sections 307\/149 IPC and Section 3 & 5 of the
\nTADA Act, rigorous imprisonment for five years for each of these offences
\nand fine was imposed on each of the appellants. For offences under Section
\n148 IPC two years’ rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Section
\n363\/149 IPC and Sections 25 of Arms Act one year’s rigorous imprisonment
\nand fine was imposed on each of the appellants. All the sentences were
\ndirected to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the judgment
\nand order of learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Nabha, in this
\nappeal filed under Section 19 of the TADA Act. The appellants have been
\nconvicted for the incident of encounter alleged to have taken place,
\naccording to the case of the prosecution, on 18.8.1989. In brief, the
\nprosecution case is that on 18.9.1989 Inspector Ram Singh received
\ninformation that some terrorists armed with weapons had entered District
\nKurukshetra for committing crime. Two police parties were constituted – one
\nheaded by S.I. Anil Kumar and the other headed by S.I. Om Prakash, D.S.P.
\nDeep Ram and two independent witnesses Kamail Singh and Surjit Singh were
\nwith Inspector Ram Singh along with some other police officials. A
\nNakabandi was arranged with the instructions to the police officials to
\nstart firing when it is so ordered. It was a moonlit night. At about 9.45
\np.m. accused Jagmail Singh and other accused including one Gurnam Singh
\nwere seen coming armed with weapons. Gurnam Singh has also died. On lalkara
\nbeing raised by Ram Singh, Jagmail Singh who was ahead of all accused
\npersons was apprehended. The other persons following him took positions and
\nstarted firing. The police parties also fired in self defence and asked the
\naccused to surrender as they were surrounded from all sides. The firing
\ncontinued for about one hour. The police team consisted of about 50\/60
\nofficials. During the firing 175 shots were fired by the police and 157
\nrounds by the accused. When all the accused surrendered, their personal
\nsearch were taken. From Jagmail Singh one AK-47 rifle, 169 cartridges, two
\nmagazines were recovered. From the search of Gurbachan Singh one AK-47
\nrifle, 51 empty cartridges, two magazines and 163 live cartridges of Ak-47
\nwere recovered. Ak-47 rifle was sealed and empties were also sealed. From
\nthe search of Baldev Singh, one AK-47 rifle, 49 empty cartridges, one .30
\nbore pistol and 15 live cartridges of the same bore and 118 live cartridges
\nof AK-47 rifle were recovered. AK-47 rifle and 49 empty cartridges were
\nseparately sealed. From Sukhjit Singh, one AK-47 rifle, two magazines, 47
\nempty cartridges, 127 live cartridges were recovered. Empties and the rifle
\nwere sealed. From Ranjit Singh, one .315 bore rifle, 16 live cartridges,
\ntwo empty cartridges of the same bore were recovered. The recovered 16 live
\ncartridges were sealed. From Gurnam Singh, one .285 bore rifle, three
\nempties and 12 live cartridges were recovered. Empties and rifles were
\nseparately sealed. From Satnam Singh, one .12 bore CBBL gun was recovered
\nwith 12 live cartridges and two empty cartridges and one .32 bore pistol
\nwas recovered. Gun and empties were sealed separately. The accused were not
\ncarrying any permit or licence to carry the weapons and the ammunition.\n<\/p>\n
The accused were charged for offences under Sections 148, 307\/149, 363\/149
\nIPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. To
\nprove the case prosecution examined DSP Ram Singh (PW1), Surjit Singh (PW),
\nShri Niwas Vashisht, S.P. (PW5), Surjit Singh Deswal, Addl. S.P. (PW4).
\nKapoor Singh (PW5), Chander Bhan, Armourer (PW6). DSP Deep Ram (PW7) and
\nDr. Harbaksh Singh (PW8).\n<\/p>\n
The defence also examined three witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (DW1),
\nKamail Singh (DW2) and Gurbachan Singh (DW3),<\/p>\n
DW3 has deposed that he is the Lambardar of the village and the accused
\nwere picked up by the police from the village and nothing was recovered
\nfrom them. DW2 has deposed that he was never called by PW1 Ram Singh in
\nconnection with the Nakabandi in question and that he along with Surjit
\nSingh were called to Police Station and their signatures obtained there. No
\nrecovery was made in his presence. He also stated that no encounter took
\nplace between the police and the accused in his presence. Kamail Singh is
\none of the attesting witnesses to the recovery. To the similar effect is
\nthe testimony of DWI-Jarnail Singh. Surjit Singh (PW2) being other
\nindependent witness of the recovery also did not support the prosecution
\nand was declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
Reverting now to the prosecution witnesses, PW1 has, of course, fully
\nsupported the prosecution case. At the same time, however, it deserves to
\nbe noticed that although according to the prosecution case 175 rounds were
\nfired by the police and 157 by the accused, the prosecution has not proved
\neven a single injury grievous, simple or minor to anyone – whether on
\npolice side or on accused side. There is also no evidence to connect the
\nempties with the weapons. This is despite large recoveries as noticed
\nearlier. From the facts of the case, one gets an impression as if a
\nfriendly match was being played. There is no evidence to prove the firing
\nof the shots as aforesaid except the testimony of PW1 and another police
\nofficial with him PW7 Deep Ram and the confessional statement to which we
\nwould advert shortly. As noticed above none of the independent witnesses
\nhave supported the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
There are also many vital discrepancies and contradictions between the
\nstatements of PW1 on one hand and PW7 on the other. But for the view we are
\ntaking of the confessional statement which is one of the main basis on
\nwhich conviction has been based and other circumstances of the case, it is
\nnot necessary to delve into the said discrepancies and contradictions by
\ngoing, into details of their testimonies. PW3 Shri Niwas Vashisht, the S.P.
\nis stated to have recorded the confessions of Ranjit Singh and Jagmail
\nSingh on 5.10.1989 under Section 15 of the TADA Act. They were arrested on
\n18.9.1989. The confessions of Ranjit Singh is Exbt. P-M. It is signed by
\nRanjit Singh and PW3. The confessions of Jagmail Singh is Exbt. P-N.
\nLikewise it is also signed by Jagmail Singh PW3.\n<\/p>\n
According to the deposition of PW3 in cross-examination, the accused were
\nin police custody 18-20 days prior to recording of their confessional
\nstatements. PW3 has deposed that he gave the requisite warning to the
\naccused that they were not bound to make the confessional statement and if
\nthey make it will be used as evidence against them, but despite the warning
\nthey were prepared and willing to make the statement. After recording the
\nintroductory statement in this behalf in question-answer form he still
\nconsidered it proper to give them some time for rethinking and for this
\npurpose they were allowed to sit in separate rooms for some time and
\nbrought to him after about half an hour and expressed their desire to make
\nstatement and thereafter the confessional statements were recorded.\n<\/p>\n
Before adverting to the facts said to have been narrated by the accused as
\nrecorded in the two confessional statements, it deserves to be noticed that
\nin case the recording officer of the confessional statement on
\nadministering the statutory warning to the accused forms a belief that the
\naccused should be granted some time to think over the matter, it becomes
\nobligatory on him to grant reasonable time for the purpose to the accused.
\nIn other words, the cooling time that is granted has to be reasonable. What
\ntime should be granted would of course depend upon the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case. At the same time, however, when the time to
\nthink over is granted that cannot be a mere force for the sake of granting
\ntime. In a given case, depending on facts, the recording officer without
\ngranting any time may straightaway proceed to record the confessional
\nstatement but if he thinks it appropriate to grant time, it cannot be a
\nmechanical exercise for completing a formality.\n<\/p>\n
In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR<\/a> (1957) S 637, where a
\nmagistrate granted about half an hour to accused to think over and soon
\nthereafter recorded the confessional statement, this court reiterated that
\nwhen accused is produced before the magistrate by the Investigating
\nOfficer, it is of utmost importance that the mind of the accused person
\nshould be completely freed from any possible influence of the police and
\nthe effective way of securing such freedom from fear to the accused person
\nis to send him to jail custody and give him adequate time to consider
\nwhether he should make a confession at all. It would naturally be difficult
\nto lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed
\nto an accused person in any given case.\n<\/p>\n
This Court further held :- “However, speaking generally, it would, we
\nthink, be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24
\nhours to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Where there may
\nbe reason to suspect that the accused has been persuaded or coerced to make
\na confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his
\nstatement is recorded. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case it
\nis impossible to accept the view that enough time was given to the accused
\nto think over the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
The present case as noticed earlier, relates to incident of alleged
\nencounter dated 18.9.1989. The confessional statements recorded by PW3
\nrecord two incidents. First the confession records about incidents by same
\naccused which had allegedly taken place in same village on 11.9.1989. The
\nincident dated 11.9.1989 was subject matter of Sessions Case no. 6-T of
\n17.1.91 before Additional Judge Designated Court, District Jail Nabha.\n<\/p>\n
In respect of incidents dated 11th September, 1989 the appellants and two
\nother accused were charged for offences under Sections 148,452,323 read
\nwith Sections 149,427 read with Sections 149, 506 IPC and for offences
\nunder Section 3 of the TADA Act. The confessional statements proved by PW3
\nand PW4 also contain admission of guilt by these accused in respect of
\nincidents dated 11th September, 1989. The SHO, Inspector Anil Kumar who
\ninspected the spot and prepared the site plan etc. and made recoveries and
\nconducted a part of investigation of incidents of 11th September, 1989 was
\nthe same, namely, Inspector Anil Kumar, who headed one of the team in the
\nencounter which is subject matter of the present appeal. The investigation
\nof the said case was also taken upon by Inspector Ram Singh who is PW1 in
\nthe present case. Ram Singh had arrested all these accused on 18.9.1989
\nevidently in relation to both the cases, namely, one subject matter of the
\npresent appeal and the other which was subject matter of Sessions case no.
\n6-T of 17.1.1991. The first part of the confession records the incident
\ndated 11.9.1989 and second pan records the incident dated 18.9.1989,
\nnamely, the encounter that had taken place which led to the appellants’
\nconviction in the manner aforestated.\n<\/p>\n
The earlier sessions case resulted in appellants’ acquittal by judgment
\ndated 20.10.1992 passed by Addl. Judge, Designated Court, District Jail.
\nNabha. That judgment was placed on the record of the Designated Court by
\nthe appellants. It is Ext. D-l. Unfortunately, there is not even a whisper
\nabout the judgment dated 20th October, 1992 in the impugned judgment and
\norder of the Designated Court convicting the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to explain the
\nreason why the confession which purports to admit both the incidents was
\nnot placed and relied upon in the earlier case. The only submission made in
\nthat regard is that the defence did not as any question in the present case
\nfrom the prosecution witnesses. On the facts of the case as noticed, that
\nis hardly an explanation.\n<\/p>\n
PW4 Surjit Singh Deswal was an Addl. Superintendent of Police. He admitted
\nthat in the administrative hierarchy PW3 was above him and on oral
\ndirections of PW3 he recorded the confessional statements of accused Satnam
\nwhich is Ext. P-5 and accused Gurnam (Exbt. P-5\/3). Like PW3, he gave to
\nthe accused 20 to 30 minutes to think over whether they wanted to give the
\nconfessional statements, this time was given after the accused were
\nadministered statutory warning in the similar fashion as was done by PW3.
\nIt seems to be quite strange that both the officers though recorded
\nconfessional statements of two accused each separately thought that half an
\nhour or 20 minutes would be sufficient cooling time to be given to the
\naccused who are being brought before them from police custody of 18-20 days
\nand had expressed, according to these officers, their willingness to make
\nconfessional statements.\n<\/p>\n
There is another aspect of recording of confessional statements by PW4. As
\nalready noticed he was Addl. S.P. In the administrative hierarchy he was
\nlower in rank than PW3 shri Niwas Vashisht, S.P. Learned counsel for the
\nState has not been able to show any rule, regulation or other provision to
\nestablish the status of PW 4 – a police officer, an Additional
\nSuperintendent of Police. Nothing was brought to our notice to establish
\nthat he was a police officer not lower in rank than the Superintendent of
\nPolice. It was, however, submitted by the learned counsel that even if the
\ntwo confessional statements recorded PW4 are kept out of consideration
\nstill the conviction can be upheld only on the basis of confessional
\nstatements recorded by PW3. We have already expressed hereinbefore our
\nviews in respect of the confessional statements recorded by PW3.\n<\/p>\n
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the grant of half an
\nhour to the accused to think over before recording their confessional
\nstatement cannot be held to be a reasonable period. We do not think that is
\nsafe to base conviction on such confessional statements. Further, on the
\nfacts of the present case, conviction cannot be maintained on the sole
\ntestimony of two police officials. It may also be noticed that although PW6
\nChander Bhan, Armourer, was examined by the prosecution to prove that the
\nweapons were in working conditions, no effort was made to prove that the
\nammunition or the empties matched the weapons.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the
\nappellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of Additional Judge,
\nDesignated Court, District Jail, Nabha, dated, 27th April, 2002 is set
\naside and the appeal allowed, accordingly. The appellants shall be set at
\nliberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 627 of 2002 PETITIONER: RANJIT SINGH @ JITA AND ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2002 BENCH: Y.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(2) […]<\/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-9938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - 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\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-14T18:43:15+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T18:43:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2506,\"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\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T18:43:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - 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\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-14T18:43:15+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T18:43:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002"},"wordCount":2506,"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\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002","name":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T18:43:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranjit-singh-jita-and-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-11-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranjit Singh @ Jita And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/9938","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=9938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}