{"id":126718,"date":"2009-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-12T23:00:36","modified_gmt":"2017-10-12T17:30:36","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              1\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n                            Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008\n                            Date of Decision : 22.01.2009\n\nState of Haryana                                  ...Appellant\n\n                            Versus\n\nSandeep Kumar                                     ....Respondent\n\n                            Crl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007\n\nKulbir Singh                                      ...Appellant\n\n                            Versus\n\nState of Haryana                                  ....Respondent\n\n                            Crl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007\n\nBabli @ Tarsem Singh                              ...Appellant\n\n                            Versus\n\nState of Haryana                                  ....Respondent\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL\n     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent: Mr. S.S.Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,\n         for the appellant, in Criminal Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008.\n\n         Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate,\n         for Sandeep Kumar-respondent, in\n         Criminal appeal No.495-DB of 2008.\n\n         Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate,\n         for Kulbir Singh, appellant,\n         in Criminal Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007.\n\n         Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate,\n         with Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate,\n         for Babli @ Tarsem Singh-appellant, in\n         Criminal Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007.\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               2\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007\n\n\n          Mr. S.S.Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,\n          for the respondent, in Criminal Appeal Nos.2409-SB of 2007 &\n          2469-SB of 2007.\n\nSHAM SUNDER, J.\n<\/pre>\n
          This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.495-DBA<\/p>\n
of 2008, filed by the State of Haryana, against the judgment of acquittal<\/p>\n
dated 25.8.2007, of Sandeep Kumar, Criminal Appeal No.2409-SB of<\/p>\n
2007, filed by Kulbir Singh, appellant, and Criminal Appeal No.2469-SB<\/p>\n
of 2007, filed by Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellant, against the judgment<\/p>\n
of conviction dated 25.8.2007,       and the order of sentence dated<\/p>\n
27.8.2007, rendered by the Special Judge, Jind, vide which he convicted<\/p>\n
Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, accused\/appellants, for the<\/p>\n
offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs &<\/p>\n
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only)<\/p>\n
and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of<\/p>\n
ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of<\/p>\n
payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another<\/p>\n
period of six months each, for having been found in possession of 280<\/p>\n
kgs. poppy-husk, (falling within the ambit of commercial quantity),<\/p>\n
without any permit or licence. As stated above, Sandeep Kumar, accused,<\/p>\n
was acquitted vide the aforesaid judgment, by the trial Court.<\/p>\n
2.        The facts of the prosecution case, as summarized, proceeded in<\/p>\n
the manner, that on 3.5.2006, a V.T.message was received in Police<\/p>\n
Station Garhi, from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana. The<\/p>\n
message was to the effect, that one Scorpio vehicle having 2\/3 occupants,<\/p>\n
was found moving under suspicious circumstances, and a picket be held,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              3<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
with a view to check the same. On receipt of this message, Dalbir Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI, Police Station Garhi, alongwith other police officials reached Data<\/p>\n
Singhwala, in Govt. Jeep, bearing No.HR-21 B-8395, driven by Suresh<\/p>\n
Kumar, Constable. At that place, the other police officials met the police<\/p>\n
party. Thereafter, Dalbir Singh, ASI, held a picket. One Scorpio vehicle<\/p>\n
(silver coloured), bearing No.HR-37 B-4278, came from Narwana side.<\/p>\n
On seeing the police party, the vehicle all of a sudden stopped. As soon<\/p>\n
as it stopped, two persons alighted from the back side of the said vehicle.<\/p>\n
The driver of the said vehicle got down from the driver’s seat. All of<\/p>\n
them fled towards the fields. Dalbir Singh, ASI, and the other police<\/p>\n
officials got suspicious, about the conduct of the occupants of the said<\/p>\n
vehicle, who after getting down therefrom, started running. They were<\/p>\n
asked to stop, but they did not do so. They were chased. While running<\/p>\n
two of them put off their shoes. However, at a distance of about half<\/p>\n
kilometer, all of them were apprehended. One of them, disclosed his<\/p>\n
name as Sandeep Kumar, who was driving the vehicle, whereas, the<\/p>\n
remaining two persons, disclosed their names as Babli @ Tarsem Singh<\/p>\n
S\/o Gurmel Singh and Kulbir Singh S\/o Nikka Singh. Babli @ Tarsem<\/p>\n
Singh and Kulbir Singh, who put off their shoes, while running, sustained<\/p>\n
injuries, in the fields, where the wheat crop was lying. Thereafter, they<\/p>\n
were brought near the aforesaid vehicle. The vehicle was checked. It<\/p>\n
was found containing 06 gunny bags and 02 plastic bags. Dalbir Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI, suspected that the bags aforesaid, contained contraband. Notice<\/p>\n
under Section 50 of the Act, was served upon them, as to whether, they<\/p>\n
wanted the search of the bags, to be conducted, in the presence of a
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              4<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
Gazetted Officer, or a Magistrate. They, however, opted that they wanted<\/p>\n
the search to be conducted, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, Dalbir Singh, ASI, called the DSP, Narwana, to the spot, who<\/p>\n
reached there. He directed Dalbir Singh, ASI, to conduct the search of<\/p>\n
the gunny and plastic bags. The gunny and the plastic bags, were taken<\/p>\n
out of the vehicle aforesaid. On search, each gunny bag, was found<\/p>\n
containing 40 kgs. poppy-husk, whereas each plastic bag, was found<\/p>\n
containing 20 kgs. poppy-husk. Two samples of 100 grams, from each of<\/p>\n
the gunny and the plastic bags, were taken out, and the remaining poppy-<\/p>\n
husk, was kept in the same gunny and plastic bags. The samples, gunny<\/p>\n
and the plastic bags, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were<\/p>\n
converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a<\/p>\n
separate recovery memo, alongwith the Scorpio vehicle. Ruqa, Ex.PG,<\/p>\n
was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR, Ex.PE,<\/p>\n
was registered. Rough site plan, Ex.PA, of the place of recovery, was<\/p>\n
prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused<\/p>\n
were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were<\/p>\n
challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.        On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents,<\/p>\n
relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge<\/p>\n
under Section 15 of the Act, against all the accused, as also under<\/p>\n
Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against Sandeep Kumar,<\/p>\n
accused, was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
4.        The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Raghbir<\/p>\n
Singh, SI (PW-1), before whom the case property, samples, witnesses,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               5<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
and the accused, were produced, by Dalbir Singh, ASI, and who after<\/p>\n
verification of the same, affixed his own seal, Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman<\/p>\n
(PW-2), who prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PB, Ram Kumar,<\/p>\n
Constable (PW-3), a formal witness, who tendered his affidavit, Ex.PC,<\/p>\n
Raj Kumar, HC (PW-4), another formal witness, who tendered his<\/p>\n
affidavit, Ex.PD, Krishan Kumar, EHC (PW-5), who delivered special<\/p>\n
report, Ex.PE, to the Illaqa Magistrate, Krishan Kumar, Photographer<\/p>\n
(PW-6), who took the photographs, Exs.P1 and P2, of Scorpio vehicle, as<\/p>\n
also of the gunny bags, and of the plastic bags, and the negatives<\/p>\n
whereof, are Exs.P3 and P4, Surender Singh Malik, DSP (PW-7), a<\/p>\n
witness to the search and seizure, Dalbir Singh, SI (at the relevant time<\/p>\n
ASI) (PW-8), the Investigating Officer, who deposed, with regard to the<\/p>\n
search of the accused, and seizure of the contraband, Jagat Singh, SI<\/p>\n
(PW-9), who submitted the report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., after the<\/p>\n
completion of investigation, and Rajinder Singh, ASI (PW-10), a witness<\/p>\n
to the search and seizure. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State,<\/p>\n
tendered report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex.PM, and after<\/p>\n
giving up Mahabir Singh, HC, he closed the prosecution evidence.<\/p>\n
5.        The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were<\/p>\n
recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances,<\/p>\n
appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication.\n<\/p>\n
6.        Kulbir Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. stated that the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely, against him.
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              6<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
7.        Babli @ Tarsem Singh and Sandeep Kumar, accused, also took<\/p>\n
up the same plea, in their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as was<\/p>\n
taken up by Kulbir Singh, accused.\n<\/p>\n
8.        Sandeep Kumar, accused, however, produced Harpal Kaur<\/p>\n
(DW-1), Raj Kumar, (DW-2), and Hem Raj, (DW-3), in their defence.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the accused closed the defence evidence.<\/p>\n
9.        After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial<\/p>\n
Court, convicted and sentenced Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh,<\/p>\n
accused, whereas, acquitted Sandeep Kumar, accused, as stated<\/p>\n
hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
10.       Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the<\/p>\n
order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, Criminal Appeal Nos.2409-<\/p>\n
SB of 2007 and 2469-SB of 2007, were filed by Kulbir Singh and Babli<\/p>\n
@ Tarsem Singh, appellants, respectively, and the State of Haryana, filed<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008, against the acquittal of Sandeep<\/p>\n
Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
11.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone<\/p>\n
through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.<\/p>\n
12.       The Counsel for appellants, Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem<\/p>\n
Singh, at the very outset, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed<\/p>\n
to prove the conscious possession of the accused, in relation to the<\/p>\n
poppy-husk, allegedly recovered from the Scorpio vehicle, and, as such,<\/p>\n
they did not commit any offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act.
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              7<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not<\/p>\n
appear to be correct. Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, were<\/p>\n
sitting on 06 gunny bags, and 02 plastic bags, containing poppy-husk,<\/p>\n
which were lying in the said vehicle.     It was not a small quantity of<\/p>\n
poppy-husk, which was recovered from the said vehicle. It was a big<\/p>\n
haul of poppy-husk, which was being transported, in the said vehicle. It<\/p>\n
could not escape the notice of both these accused. It was within the<\/p>\n
special means of knowledge of the accused, as to wherefrom these bags,<\/p>\n
containing poppy-husk, were loaded, in the said vehicle, and to which<\/p>\n
destination the same were being transported, for the purpose of sale, on<\/p>\n
commercial basis, for minting money. They were required to explain the<\/p>\n
circumstances, regarding the existence of the bags, containing poppy-<\/p>\n
husk, in the said vehicle.       They, however, failed to furnish any<\/p>\n
explanation, in this regard. Under these circumstances, the possession of<\/p>\n
the accused, and their control over the bags, containing poppy-husk,<\/p>\n
stood proved. Once the possession of the accused, and their control over<\/p>\n
the contraband was proved, then statutory presumption under Sections 54<\/p>\n
and 35 of the Act, operated against them, that they were in conscious<\/p>\n
possession thereof. Thereafter, it was for them, to rebut the presumption,<\/p>\n
by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, the appellants<\/p>\n
failed to rebut that presumption, either during the course of cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading defence<\/p>\n
evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Court was right, in holding<\/p>\n
that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of<\/p>\n
the Act ibid reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
                     “Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In<\/p>\n
                     trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and<\/p>\n
                     until the contrary is proved, that the accused has<\/p>\n
                     committed an offence under this Act, in respect of:-<\/p>\n
                     a)           any       narcotic   drug   or    psychotropic\n\n                     substance or controlled substance;\n\n                     b)           any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca\n\n<\/pre>\n
                     plant growing on any land which he has cultivated;\n<\/p>\n
                     c)           any apparatus specially designed or any\n\n                     group      of    utensils    specially   adopted   for    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
                     manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic<\/p>\n
                     substance or controlled substance; or<\/p>\n
                     d)           any materials which have undergone any<\/p>\n
                     process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug<\/p>\n
                     or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or<\/p>\n
                     any residue left of the materials from which any<\/p>\n
                     narcotic        drug    or   psychotropic     substance   or<\/p>\n
                     controlled substance has been manufactured,<\/p>\n
                     for the possession of which he fails to account<\/p>\n
                     satisfactorily.”\n<\/p>\n
13.       Section 35 which relates to the presumption of culpable mental<\/p>\n
state, is extracted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                     “Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1) In any<\/p>\n
                     prosecution for an offence under this Act, which<\/p>\n
                     requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                 9<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
                    Court shall presume the existence of such mental<\/p>\n
                    state but it shall be a defence for the accused to<\/p>\n
                    prove the fact that he had no such mental state with<\/p>\n
                    respect to the act charged as an offence in that<\/p>\n
                    prosecution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Explanation:- In this section “culpable mental state”<\/p>\n
                    includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and<\/p>\n
                    belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.<\/p>\n
                    (2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to<\/p>\n
                    be proved only when the court believes it to exist<\/p>\n
                    beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its<\/p>\n
                    existence is established by a preponderance of<\/p>\n
                    probability.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.       From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and<\/p>\n
35, referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an<\/p>\n
accused, is found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to<\/p>\n
have committed the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act,<\/p>\n
until the contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the<\/p>\n
Court shall presume the existence of mental state, for the commission of<\/p>\n
an offence, and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal<\/p>\n
and another Vs. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
                  The word “conscious” means awareness about a
\n                  particular fact.     It is a state of mind which is
\n                  deliberate or intended.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             Once possession is established, the person
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               10<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
                   who claims that it was not a conscious possession has
\n                   to establish it, because how he came to be in
\n                   possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35
\n                   of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position
\n                   because of the presumption available in law. Similar
\n                   is the position in terms of Section 54 where also
\n                   presumption is available to be drawn from possession
\n                   of illicit articles.”\n<\/p>\n
15.       The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) in brief, were that<\/p>\n
accused Manjit     Singh was driving the Car and the remaining four<\/p>\n
accused, were sitting therein.      One steel container (dolu) in a black<\/p>\n
coloured bag, was recovered from the said Car, which contained 820 gms.<\/p>\n
charas. All the accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court,<\/p>\n
holding that they were found in conscious possession of charas, despite<\/p>\n
the fact, that one of the accused, admitted his conscious possession, of the<\/p>\n
contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial Court was right in coming<\/p>\n
to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of<\/p>\n
charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how, they were travelling in a<\/p>\n
Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex Court upheld<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In the instant case,<\/p>\n
the accused failed to explain, as to how, 06 gunny bags and 02 plastic<\/p>\n
bags, containing poppy-husk were found in the Scorpio vehicle, in which<\/p>\n
they were travelling. The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) are similar<\/p>\n
and identical to the facts of the present case. The principle of law, laid<\/p>\n
down, in Madan Lal’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case. In the instant case, in their statements, under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., the accused\/appellants took up the plea, only of false
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               11<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
implication.   They also failed to prove, as to how, they were found<\/p>\n
travelling together in Scorpio, which was not a public vehicle. No plea<\/p>\n
was taken up by Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, that they only<\/p>\n
took a lift in the said vehicle, as no public transport, was available. They<\/p>\n
also did not take up the plea that they were merely engaged as labourers,<\/p>\n
for loading and unloading the bags, and, therefore, they did not know,<\/p>\n
what was contained therein. No plea was also taken up, by them, that they<\/p>\n
were friendly to the driver of the said vehicle, and with a view to provide<\/p>\n
him company, they sat therein. As stated above, the accused miserably<\/p>\n
failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above. Thus, their<\/p>\n
conscious possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as<\/p>\n
such, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
16.       It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellants, that no independent witness was<\/p>\n
joined, despite availability, and, as such, the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
became doubtful.    In the instant case, no specific information had been<\/p>\n
received against the accused, that they were bringing contraband, in a<\/p>\n
particular vehicle, and, in case, a picket was held, they could be<\/p>\n
apprehanded and huge quantity of narcotics could be recovered from<\/p>\n
them.   Only a general information was received, by the DSP, who<\/p>\n
conveyed the same through V.T.message to the Police Station. It was<\/p>\n
only thereafter, keeping in view the urgency of the matter, that Dalbir<\/p>\n
Singh, ASI of Police Station Garhi, accompanied by other police<\/p>\n
officials, went in the area of village Data Singhwala, and held a picket. It
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               12<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
was, per chance, that the aforesaid vehicle, the occupants whereof, were<\/p>\n
the accused came. The place where the picket had been held, is at a<\/p>\n
distance of about half kilometer from Village Data Singhwala, as is<\/p>\n
evident from the statement of Dalbir Singh, ASI (PW-8), the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer. Dalbir Singh, ASI, during the course of his cross-<\/p>\n
examination, stated that some persons had reached the spot of their own.<\/p>\n
He further stated that an attempt was made to join those persons, in the<\/p>\n
investigation, but they showed their inability. It means that an effort was<\/p>\n
made by Dalbir Singh, ASI, the Investigating Officer, to join the<\/p>\n
independent witnesses, but none was ready to join.            Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the conduct of the Investigating Officer, could not be said<\/p>\n
to be blemished, in any manner. It is a matter of common experience that<\/p>\n
independent witnesses, shun joining, a search or seizure with a view to<\/p>\n
avoid wrath and displeasure of the accused, as also the complications,<\/p>\n
which may arise later on, on account of their appearance in the Court,<\/p>\n
from time to time, for their evidence.     It has also become the general<\/p>\n
tendency of the people to criticize the Police and the Courts, for their<\/p>\n
failures, but when an occasion arises, to seek their assistance, at the time<\/p>\n
of search or seizure of a contraband, or detection of crime, they show<\/p>\n
their disinterest. The mere fact that no independent witness could be<\/p>\n
joined, on account of the aforesaid reasons, in itself, could not be said to<\/p>\n
be sufficient to disbelieve and distrust the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the<\/p>\n
Court is required to scrutinize the same, carefully and cautiously. After<\/p>\n
careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              13<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
the evidence of the official witnesses, inspires confidence, and does not<\/p>\n
suffer from any serious infirmity, then no formidible reason can be<\/p>\n
coined, to disbelieve the same. The evidence of the official witnesses, in<\/p>\n
the instant case, has been subjected to indepth scrutiny, and nothing came<\/p>\n
to the fore, which may go to discredit the same. The evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses, on such scrutiny, has been found to be cogent,<\/p>\n
convincing, reliable and trustworthy. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled,<\/p>\n
that the evidence of search or seizure, made by the police, will not<\/p>\n
become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by<\/p>\n
an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I<\/p>\n
S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer,<\/p>\n
            should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to<\/p>\n
            start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the<\/p>\n
            documents made by the Police.        At any rate, the Court<\/p>\n
            cannot start with the presumption that the police records<\/p>\n
            are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption<\/p>\n
            should be the other way round. The official acts of the<\/p>\n
            Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of<\/p>\n
            presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
17.       In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C.<\/p>\n
696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the<\/p>\n
ground, that an independent witness had not been examined, by the<\/p>\n
prosecution. It was further held, in the said authority, that the civilized
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                 14<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in<\/p>\n
their presence, and they withdraw from the victims’ side, and from the<\/p>\n
side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless<\/p>\n
it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute,<\/p>\n
between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it.           The<\/p>\n
principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable<\/p>\n
to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining<\/p>\n
of    an independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, has been held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and<\/p>\n
reliable, and there was no reason, on their part, to falsely implicate the<\/p>\n
accused, no doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. The submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
18.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh appellants, that the samples were deposited in the<\/p>\n
office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, after a delay of 14 days,<\/p>\n
without any explanation, and, as such, the possibility of tampering with<\/p>\n
the same, until the same reached the Laboratory, could not be ruled out.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not<\/p>\n
appear to be correct. The mere fact that no explanation was furnished for<\/p>\n
depositing the samples, in the Laboratory, after delay, in itself, is not<\/p>\n
sufficient, to come to the conclusion, that the same were tampered with,<\/p>\n
at any stage of the case. In such circumstances, the Court is required to<\/p>\n
fall back upon the other evidence, produced by the prosecution, to<\/p>\n
complete the link evidence.       The other evidence, produced by the
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               15<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
prosecution, has been subjected to indepth scrutiny. It has been found to<\/p>\n
be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy.        From the other<\/p>\n
evidence, produced by the prosecution, it was proved that none tampered<\/p>\n
with the sample parcels, until the same reached the office of the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory. Above all, there is report of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, Ex.PM, which clearly proves that the seals on the parcels,<\/p>\n
were found intact, and tallied with the specimen seals sent. The report of<\/p>\n
the Forensic Science Laboratory, is per-se admissible into evidence, in its<\/p>\n
entirety, as per the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The delay, in<\/p>\n
sending the samples, to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory,<\/p>\n
therefore, did not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Had no other<\/p>\n
evidence, been produced, by the prosecution, to prove that the sample<\/p>\n
parcels, remained untampered with, until the same reached the office of<\/p>\n
the Forensic Science Laboratory, the matter would have been different. In<\/p>\n
State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 196 (S.C.),<\/p>\n
it was held that mere delay in sending the sample to the Laboratory is not<\/p>\n
fatal, where there is evidence that the seized articles remained in safe<\/p>\n
custody. In Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 343, which was a case, relating to the recovery of 4 Kgs. of<\/p>\n
opium, the samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner,<\/p>\n
after 23 days. All the samples were intact. In these circumstances, it was<\/p>\n
held that, in the face of the other cogent, convincing, reliable, and<\/p>\n
trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, to prove the<\/p>\n
completion of link evidence, it could not be held that the possibility of<\/p>\n
tampering with the samples, could not be ruled out. The principle of law,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               16<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of<\/p>\n
the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case, unexplained delay of 14<\/p>\n
days, in sending the samples to the office of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, did not at all matter much. In this view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
19.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellants, that no written notice, under Section<\/p>\n
50 of the Act, was served, upon the accused, as to whether, they wanted<\/p>\n
the search of the vehicle, and the bags, in the presence of a Gazetted<\/p>\n
Officer or a Magistrate.       The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the instant<\/p>\n
case, joint notice, Ex.PF, in terms of Section 50 of the Act, was served<\/p>\n
upon the accused, and their reply, Ex.PF\/1, was obtained. However, it<\/p>\n
may be stated here, that in the instant case, the provisions of Section 50<\/p>\n
of the Act, were not applicable, as the recovery was not effected, from the<\/p>\n
person of the accused, but from the aforesaid Scorpio vehicle, of which<\/p>\n
they were the occupants. Had the recovery been effected from the person<\/p>\n
of the accused, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, would have been<\/p>\n
attracted to this case. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999(6)<\/p>\n
S.C.C. 172, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, settled beyond<\/p>\n
doubt, that the language of Section 50, was implicitly clear, that the<\/p>\n
search had to be, in relation to a person, and not in relation to the<\/p>\n
premises, vehicles, or articles. Similar view was taken in Smt. Krishna<\/p>\n
Kanwar Thakuraeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2004(1) S.C. 597. In
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                17<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
these circumstances, it can be said that the consistent, and particularly the<\/p>\n
view of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, appears to be that the<\/p>\n
search, must relate to the person, and not vehicles, other luggage and<\/p>\n
articles, and then alone the provisions of Section 50 would be attracted.<\/p>\n
Since, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authorities, the provisions of Section 50 were not applicable, to the<\/p>\n
search, in the instant case, the trial Court was right in recording<\/p>\n
conviction and awarding sentence, to the accused. The submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
20.         It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh appellants, that the Scorpio vehicle, did not<\/p>\n
belong to the accused. It was further submitted that no investigation was<\/p>\n
conducted, by the Investigating Officer, as to whom the said vehicle<\/p>\n
belonged, and as to what was the origin of the poppy-husk. They further<\/p>\n
submitted that, on account of this reason, the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
became highly doubtful. It was further submitted that even the owner of<\/p>\n
the vehicle, was not challaned. It is, no doubt, true that the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer, committed some irregularity by not ascertaining the name of the<\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle. Even the owner of the vehicle was not joined,<\/p>\n
during the course of investigation.      However, the mere fact that the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, committed some irregularity or illegality, during<\/p>\n
the course of investigation, did not mean that the benefit thereof, must go<\/p>\n
to the accused.    If such irregularity or illegality of the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer is taken into consideration, and benefit thereof, is given to the
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                18<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
accused, then every dishonest or negligent Investigating Officer, shall<\/p>\n
leave a lacuna, in the prosecution case, so as to create an escape route for<\/p>\n
the accused.    On account of non-ascertaining the ownership of the<\/p>\n
vehicle, and non-joining the owner thereof, during the course of<\/p>\n
investigation, the liability of the accused was not at all affected. Kulbir<\/p>\n
Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, were found transporting the<\/p>\n
contraband, in the aforesaid vehicle. Mere possession of the contraband,<\/p>\n
is an offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act. Both the accused,<\/p>\n
namely Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, thus, committed, the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The trial Court was right<\/p>\n
in coming to such a conclusion.         In this view of the matter, The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
21.       It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellants, that, as soon as an information, was<\/p>\n
received by the DSP, that a Scorpio vehicle was moving about, under<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances, he did not send the same to the superior<\/p>\n
Officer. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard,<\/p>\n
is without merit. The DSP himself being a Gazetted Officer, as soon as,<\/p>\n
he received the information, he sent the same to the Police Station, with a<\/p>\n
view to alert the police officials, to hold a picket, to detect that vehicle,<\/p>\n
and check the same, as to whether, the same was carrying some<\/p>\n
contraband or not. Even otherwise, there was no specific information<\/p>\n
against the accused, that they were coming in a particular vehicle, loaded<\/p>\n
with the contraband, and could be apprehended, if a raid was conducted,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                               19<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
or a picket was held, with huge quantity thereof. The DSP was not<\/p>\n
required to send the said general information, received by him, to any<\/p>\n
superior Officer. By not sending the same, to a superior Officer, he did<\/p>\n
not commit violation of any of the provisions of law. In this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard,<\/p>\n
being devoid of merit, is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
22.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellants, that the seal after use, remained with<\/p>\n
the police officials, and, as such, the possibility of tampering with the<\/p>\n
sample parcels, and changing the contents thereof, until the same reached<\/p>\n
the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, could not be ruled out. It<\/p>\n
may be stated here, that no independent witness could be joined, in this<\/p>\n
case, on account of the aforesaid reasons. Under these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
seal after use was handed over to the police officials. The mere fact that<\/p>\n
the seal after use, was handed over to the police officials, did not, in any<\/p>\n
way, go to prove that the sample parcels, were tampered with, in any<\/p>\n
manner.    It may be stated here, that as soon as, Dalbir Singh, ASI,<\/p>\n
reached the Police Station, he produced the case property before the<\/p>\n
SHO, who after checking the same, affixed his own seal. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
case property, and the sample parcels, alongwith sample impression of<\/p>\n
the seals, were entrusted to Dalbir Singh, ASI, by the SHO, and he<\/p>\n
deposited the same, with the MHC. The seals remained with the other<\/p>\n
officials. As soon as the case property, and the sample parcels, were<\/p>\n
deposited with the MHC, it could not be said that the same remained with<\/p>\n
those officials, who were in possession of the seals. Even otherwise,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                20<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
sufficient cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy, evidence was<\/p>\n
produced, by the prosecution, to prove that none tampered with the<\/p>\n
sample parcels, until the same reached the office of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory. There is no requirement of law, to hand over the seal, after<\/p>\n
use, to an independent witness. The Investigating Officer is to investigate<\/p>\n
a large number of cases. He cannot be expected to keep a number of<\/p>\n
seals. Only if, he has one seal for use, the sanctity thereof, can be<\/p>\n
maintained. In Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R. (2)<\/p>\n
447, a case decided by a Full Bench of this Court, the seal, on the sample<\/p>\n
of illicit liquor, recovered from the accused, was not entrusted to an<\/p>\n
independent person forthwith. Similarly, the independent person, though<\/p>\n
entrusted with the seal, by the Investigating Officer, later on, was not<\/p>\n
produced as a witness. In these circumstances, it was held that this fact<\/p>\n
alone, was not sufficient to affect the merits of the trial, and the<\/p>\n
prosecution case, could not be thrown out, on that score alone. It was<\/p>\n
further held, in this case, that it was not incumbent upon the Police<\/p>\n
Officer, to hand over the seal to a third person forthwith, and even, in<\/p>\n
cases, where he had done so, it was not obligatory upon him, to produce<\/p>\n
such person, as a witness, during trial, as there was no statutory<\/p>\n
requirement, whatsoever, to this effect. The principle of law, laid down,<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case.   Non-entrustment of seal, to an independent witness, by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, in view of the cogent, convincing, reliable, and<\/p>\n
trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, regarding the<\/p>\n
completion of link evidence, did not at all affect the merits of the case. In
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                                  21<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
23.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for Kulbir Singh and<\/p>\n
Babli @ Tarsem Singh, appellants, that though, according to the<\/p>\n
prosecution case, 06 gunny bags and 02 plastic bags, containing poppy-<\/p>\n
husk, were allegedly recovered from the accused, but only 5 seals were<\/p>\n
affixed. They further submitted that, as such, the case of the prosecution,<\/p>\n
became highly doubtful.       The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Dalbir Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI, in his statement, stated that the gunny bags and the plastic bags,<\/p>\n
were sealed with his seal ‘DS’. He further stated that the samples were<\/p>\n
also sealed with his seal ‘DS’. He further stated that he affixed 3 seals of<\/p>\n
‘DS’ on each sample parcel, and 5 seals of ‘DS’ on each gunny and plastic<\/p>\n
bag.   He also stated that the DSP also affixed one seal, bearing<\/p>\n
impression ‘SS’ on each sample parcel, and each gunny and plastic bag.<\/p>\n
From the careful perusal of the statement of Dalbir Singh, ASI, it is<\/p>\n
evident, that on each sample parcel, he affixed 3 seals, whereas, on each<\/p>\n
gunny bag and plastic bag, he affixed 5 seals. It does not mean that he<\/p>\n
only affixed 5 seals on 5 bags. In these circumstances, the submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the<\/p>\n
same stands rejected.     The trial Court was, thus, right in recording<\/p>\n
conviction and awarding sentence, for the offence, punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 15 of the Act, to Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh,<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
24.        Now coming to the appeal, filed by the State of Haryana,
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              22<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
against the acquittal of Sandeep Kumar, it may be stated here, that the<\/p>\n
same is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.<\/p>\n
It is, no doubt, true that the Appellate Court has got wide powers, to<\/p>\n
scrutinize the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, while hearing<\/p>\n
the appeal, against acquittal. However, if the view taken by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, was the one, which could be possible, on the basis of the evidence<\/p>\n
on record, then the Appellate Court, is required to be very slow in<\/p>\n
interfering with its finding.    The entire evidence produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution, qua Sandeep Kumar, has been carefully scanned. The trial<\/p>\n
Court was right, in holding that, in case, Sandeep Kumar, was present, at<\/p>\n
the spot, and allegedly tried to flee, why was he not got medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined, after he was arrested, alongwith other accused. The trial Court<\/p>\n
was also right, in holding, that when the other accused namely Kulbir<\/p>\n
Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, after apprehension were got examined<\/p>\n
from the Doctor, injuries were found on their person, and had Sandeep<\/p>\n
Kumar been apprehended, in the manner, deposed to by the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, and got medico-legally examined, the injuries on his person<\/p>\n
would have also been found, indicating that the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
was truthful.   The trial Court was, thus, right in holding that in the<\/p>\n
absence of such medical examination, the presence of Sandeep Kumar, at<\/p>\n
the time of the alleged recovery, and his apprehension was highly<\/p>\n
doubtful.   The trial Court was also right in holding that since the very<\/p>\n
presence of Sandeep Kumar, at the time of alleged recovery, was<\/p>\n
doubtful, it could not be said that he was in conscious possession of the<\/p>\n
contraband, allegedly recovered, from the vehicle. The trial Court was
\n Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              23<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
also right in holding that Sandeep Kumar, belonged to Ludhiana,<\/p>\n
whereas, Kulbir Singh and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, accused, belonged to<\/p>\n
Dhuri, District Sangrur, the places which were far away from each other,<\/p>\n
and, as such, there was no nexus, between him and the other accused.<\/p>\n
The trial Court was also right, in placing reliance on the evidence of<\/p>\n
Harpal Kaur (DW-1), Raj Kumar, (DW-2), Social Workers, and Hem Raj,<\/p>\n
(DW-3), to come to the conclusion, that the possibility of false<\/p>\n
implication of Sandeep Kumar, could not be ruled out. The view taken<\/p>\n
by the trial Court, that accused Sandeep Kumar, was not found in<\/p>\n
conscious possession of the poppy-husk aforesaid, nor was he the driver<\/p>\n
of Scorpio vehicle, wherefrom, the alleged recovery was effected, could<\/p>\n
be said to be possible, on the basis of the evidence produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution.   The judgment of the trial Court, recording acquittal of<\/p>\n
Sandeep Kumar, accused, does not suffer from any factual infirmity,<\/p>\n
illegality, perversity, or mis-reading of evidence. Therefore, no ground,<\/p>\n
whatsoever, is made out to interfere with the finding of the trial Court,<\/p>\n
acquitting Sandeep Kumar. The said appeal, therefore, is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
25.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
26.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, qua Kulbir Singh and Babli @<\/p>\n
Tarsem Singh, appellants, and the judgment of acquittal qua Sandeep<\/p>\n
Kumar, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence, and law, on the point.          The same do not warrant any<\/p>\n
interference, and are liable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008                              24<\/span><\/p>\n
\nCrl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 &
\nCrl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007<\/p>\n
27.       For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, all the appeals, referred<\/p>\n
to hereinbefore, are dismissed.       The judgment of acquittal dated<\/p>\n
25.8.2007, qua Sandeep Kumar, and the judgment of conviction dated<\/p>\n
25.8.2007, and the order of sentence dated 27.8.2007, qua Kulbir Singh<\/p>\n
and Babli @ Tarsem Singh, are upheld. If Kulbir Singh and Babli @<\/p>\n
Tarsem Singh, appellants, are on bail, their bail bonds, shall stand<\/p>\n
cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, shall take necessary steps,<\/p>\n
to comply with the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of law,<\/p>\n
with due promptitude, on receipt of a copy thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          (K.S.GAREWAL)                           (SHAM SUNDER)\n              JUDGE                                  JUDGE\n\nJanuary 22, 2009\nVimal\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009 Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008 1 Crl. Appeal No.2409-SB of 2007 & Crl. Appeal No.2469-SB of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.495-DBA of 2008 Date of Decision : 22.01.2009 State of Haryana …Appellant Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-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=\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-12T17:30:36+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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-12T17:30:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6450,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-12T17:30:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 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":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 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\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-12T17:30:36+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-12T17:30:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009"},"wordCount":6450,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009","name":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-12T17:30:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-sandeep-kumar-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Sandeep Kumar on 22 January, 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\/126718","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=126718"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126718\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}