{"id":138169,"date":"2009-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-22T09:04:52","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T03:34:52","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT\n                          CHANDIGARH\n\n                                     Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001\n                                     Date of Decision: 5.10.2009.\n\nState of Punjab                                            --Appellant\n\n                         Versus\n\nBaljit Rai and others                                      --Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL.\n        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN.\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Satinder Singh Gill, Addl. A.G., Punjab.\n\n            Ms. Baljeet Mann, Advocate with\n            Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate.\n\n            Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with\n            Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate and\n            Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate for revision petitioner.\n\n            ***\n<\/pre>\n
MEHTAB S. GILL.J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
            This is an appeal against the acquittal of Sharif Masih son of<\/p>\n
Lakha, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Nawab Masih, Baljit Rai son of Sharif<\/p>\n
Masih, Sarban Singh son of Sultan Singh by the learned Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Ferozepur vide his order dated 1.9.2000. Learned counsel for Lachman<\/p>\n
Singh son of Sultan Singh and Ruldu son of Satnam Singh has stated that<\/p>\n
both have died, thus the appeal against them has abated.<\/p>\n
            Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2001 filed by Joginder Masih-<\/p>\n
complainant against the same judgement dated 1.9.2009 acquitting the<\/p>\n
respondents is also being disposed of by this judgement.<\/p>\n
            The prosecution case is that on 31.5.1995 ASI Rajnish Kumar<\/p>\n
after receiving the medico legal report of Sheedo, Kala and Joginder<\/p>\n
reached Civil Hospital, Kot Isekhan and made an application to the doctor<\/p>\n
on duty as to whether the statement of Sheedo, Kala or Joginder could be
\n Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
recorded. The duty doctor opined that all three who were injured, were not<\/p>\n
fit to make a statement. ASI Rajnish Kumar on 1.6.1995 again went to Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital Kot Isekhan and moved an application Ex. PG. Doctor vide his<\/p>\n
endorsement Ex. PG\/1 declared Sheedo and Joginder fit to make statement.<\/p>\n
Statement of Joginder was recorded. Joginder stated that on 31.5.1995 he<\/p>\n
along with his sister-in-law Sheedo wife of Chanan Masih and his brothers<\/p>\n
Kala and Chanan Masih were standing in front of the door of their house<\/p>\n
and were talking to each other at about 7.30 P.M. Respondents\/accused<\/p>\n
Baljit Rai son of Sharif Masih armed with Kirpan, Sharif son of Lakha<\/p>\n
armed with Kirpan, Raju son of Nawab armed with gandasi, Sarban son of<\/p>\n
Sultani armed with gandasi, Lachhman son of Sultani armed with Sua and<\/p>\n
Ruldu son of Sultani armed with dang came there. Respondent\/accused<\/p>\n
Sharif raised a lalkara that Chanan Masih should not get away and he should<\/p>\n
be taught a lesson for installing a Govt. handpump in the graveyard.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, Raju gave a gandasi blow to Joginder which hit on the middle of<\/p>\n
his left upper arm. Ruldu gave two dang blows which hit Joginder on his<\/p>\n
left elbow and on the back of the lower part of his right fore-arm. Baljit<\/p>\n
gave a kirpan blow to Sheedo which hit her in the middle of the forehead.<\/p>\n
Raju gave a gandasi blow to Sheedo which hit her on the right side of her<\/p>\n
head. Ruldu gave a dang blow to Sheedo which hit on her right eye.<\/p>\n
Lachman gave a sua blow which hit on the left parietal region of Kala<\/p>\n
Singh. Sarban gave two gandasi blows which hit on the lumbar area and<\/p>\n
behind the right ear pinna of Kala Singh. Chanan Masih saw the occurrence<\/p>\n
while hiding behind a wall.\n<\/p>\n
            The motive for the commission of the offence was that Chanan<\/p>\n
Masih, who had been elected as a member panchayat wanted to install a
\n Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                    -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Govt. handpump in the graveyard of the village. The respondents\/accused<\/p>\n
were objecting to this. They wanted to install the handpump in the basti<\/p>\n
abadi area.     Thereafter, Chanan Masih took Sheedo, Kala Singh and<\/p>\n
Joginder to Civil Hospital, Kot Isekhan, where they were medically<\/p>\n
examined.\n<\/p>\n
              The prosecution in order to prove its case brought the following<\/p>\n
witnesses in to the witness box:\n<\/p>\n
              Dr. Pritam Singh Sauna as PW1, Dr. Ajit Singh as PW2, Dr.<\/p>\n
V.J.S. Dhillon as PW3, Dr. Tejinder Kumar Gupta as PW4, Dr. Raman<\/p>\n
Sharma as PW 5, Hari Krishan Singh, Patwari as PW6, HC Karamjit Singh<\/p>\n
as PW7, Dr. Rashpal Singh as PW8, Dr. Mohinder Pal as PW9, Mr. Baljit<\/p>\n
Singh, DDPO as PW10, Joginder son of Rashid as PW11, Kala son of<\/p>\n
Rashid as PW12, C. Soba Singh as PW 13, ASI Sucha Singh as PW 14, ASI<\/p>\n
Rajnish Kumar as PW 15 and SI Devinder Singh as PW 16.<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the State has argued that FIR Ex. PAA was<\/p>\n
promptly lodged. The main concern of Chanan Masih was to first see the<\/p>\n
condition and take care of Sheedo (deceased), Kala PW 12 and Joginder PW<\/p>\n
11, who had been injured.\n<\/p>\n
              The Investigating Officer ASI Rajnish Kumar recorded the<\/p>\n
statement of Joginder after getting a certificate from the doctor that he was<\/p>\n
fit to make a statement. Joginder PW 11 and Kala PW 12 have corroborated<\/p>\n
the statement of Sheedo wife of Chanan Masih, who had given her<\/p>\n
statement which should be read as a dying declaration. Joginder PW 11 and<\/p>\n
Kala PW 12 are stamped witnesses, as they also were injured in the<\/p>\n
occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
               Dr. Ajit Singh PW 2 had declared all the injured witnesses unfit<\/p>\n
to make a statement on 31.5.1995. It was on the next day i.e. On 1.6.1995 at<\/p>\n
8.30 A.M that the FIR came into existence. No special report was sent<\/p>\n
earlier because it was a case under sections 324\/325 IPC.<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the respondents\/accused have argued that<\/p>\n
the dying declaration Ex. PLL of Sheedo should not be taken into<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Statement Ex.PLL is under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not signed or thumb<\/p>\n
marked. Never did the doctor give his opinion that Sheedo was fit to make<\/p>\n
a statement.\n<\/p>\n
               Chanan Masih saw the occurrence and he could have lodged<\/p>\n
the FIR in the night itself when ASI Rajnish Kumar PW 15 had come to the<\/p>\n
hospital. Doctor Ajit Singh PW 2 had opined that Sheedo, Joginder and<\/p>\n
Kala were not fit to make a statement. The delay in lodging the FIR was for<\/p>\n
the reason that consultation and confabulations were taking place between<\/p>\n
the complainant party to falsely implicate the respondents\/accused. Chanan<\/p>\n
Masih infact was not present at the place of occurrence.<\/p>\n
               We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused<\/p>\n
the impugned judgement and the record.\n<\/p>\n
               There are discrepancies in the medical evidence and the ocular<\/p>\n
account. The alleged injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased and the<\/p>\n
injured witnesses are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               ” On 31.5.1995 PW2 Dr. Ajit Singh, SMO, Incharge, PHC,<\/p>\n
Daroli Bhai while posted as SMO, PHC Kot Ise Khan medicolegally<\/p>\n
examined Sheedo wife of Chanan Masih and found the following injuries on<\/p>\n
her person:-\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                  -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
            1.    Incised wound 8 cms x 1 \u00bd cms x bone deep on front of
\n                  middle of forehead in upper part. Longitudinally just
\n                  crossing the hair line. The wound was profusely
\n                  bleeding on examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.    Swelling 5 cms x 3 cms on right parietal area of head, 5
\n                  cms above pinna of right ear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.    Contusion with swelling 2 cms x 2 cms on lower part of
\n                  eye lids of right side.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Injuries no.1 and 2 were kept under observation while injury<\/p>\n
no.3 was declared simple in nature. After X-ray examination injuries no. 1<\/p>\n
and 2 were declared grievous in nature. This witness has proved the M.L.R<\/p>\n
in respect of Sheedo being Ex.PB and pictorial diagram showing the seat of<\/p>\n
injuries as Ex.PB\/1. He has also given his opinion Ex. PB\/2, vide which he<\/p>\n
declared injuries no.1 and 2 as grievous in nature on the basis of X-ray<\/p>\n
report Ex.PA and skiagrams Ex.PA\/1-2.\n<\/p>\n
            On the same day this witness also medico legally examined<\/p>\n
Kala Singh at 8.30 PM and found the following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
            1.    Swelling 6 cms x 5 cms on left parietal area of head.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Bleeding from the left ear was present and continuous.
\n                  Patient was semi conscious and did not speak.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.    An abrasion 6 cms x 2 cms on lumbar area of back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.    Swelling 3 cms x 1 cm behind right ear pinna.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Injury no.1 was kept under observation by this witness while<\/p>\n
injuries no.2 and 3 were declared simple in nature. He has also proved the<\/p>\n
carbon copy of the MLR in respect of Kala Singh as Ex.PC and pictorial<\/p>\n
diagram showing the seat of injuries as Ex.PC\/1. After receipt of surgical<\/p>\n
specialist opinion Ex.PD, Dr. Ajit Singh declared injury no.1 as grievous in<\/p>\n
nature vide his endorsement Ex.PD\/1.\n<\/p>\n
            On the same day Dr. Ajit Singh medico legally examined<\/p>\n
Joginder at 9.10 PM and found the following injuries on his person.
\n Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
            1.     Incised wound 2 cms x 1\/10 cm x muscle deep on outer
\n                   side of middle of left upper arm.\n<\/p>\n
            2.     Swelling with contusion 3 cms x 2 cms on outer side of
\n                   left elbow.\n<\/p>\n
            3.     Pinkish contusion 3 cms x 2 cms on back and lower part
\n                         of right forearm.”\n<\/p>\n
            In the testimony before the court Joginder PW 11 and Kala<\/p>\n
Singh PW 12 have given a different version regarding the injuries inflicted<\/p>\n
on them and deceased Sheedo.\n<\/p>\n
            Both Joginder PW 11 and Kala Singh PW 12 and in the alleged<\/p>\n
dying declaration of Sheedo are silent regarding the role of Chanan Masih,<\/p>\n
who was the prime target of the respondents\/accused. If, Chanan Masih had<\/p>\n
been present, respondents\/accused would not have spare him as he was the<\/p>\n
one they had a grudge against. If, Chanan Masih had been present, he<\/p>\n
would have lodged the report before it came into existence on the next day<\/p>\n
on the basis of statement of Joginder.\n<\/p>\n
             It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that Chanan Masih<\/p>\n
was present in the hospital, why he did not record his statement with the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer ASI Rajnish Kumar PW 15, who had reached the Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital Kot Isekhan in the night has not been explained by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
Chanan Masih has not been examined by the prosecution before the court<\/p>\n
for the reasons best known to them.\n<\/p>\n
            Regarding the alleged dying declaration Ex.PLL no doctor was<\/p>\n
present at the time when it was recorded. The Investigating Officer had<\/p>\n
ample time to have the statement of Sheedo recorded by an Executive<\/p>\n
Magistrate\/Judicial Magistrate but he did not do so. Before recording of the<\/p>\n
statement by the Investigating Officer ASI Rajnish Kumar no fitness<\/p>\n
certificate was taken as to whether Sheedo was fit to make a statement or
\n Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
not from the doctor on duty. In the statement of Dr. Ajit Singh PW 2, SMO,<\/p>\n
PHC Daroli Bhai, who produced the bed head ticket he has conceded in his<\/p>\n
cross-examination, that there is no mention in the bed head ticket that<\/p>\n
Sheedo was declared fit to make a statement.\n<\/p>\n
               We do not find any infirmity in the judgement of the learned
\nTrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
               Criminal Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
               There is no merit in Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2001, which<\/p>\n
is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            (MEHTAB S. GILL)
\n                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                            (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
\n                                                  JUDGE
\nOctober 5, 2009
\nlucky\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 401-DBA of 2001 Date of Decision: 5.10.2009. State of Punjab –Appellant Versus Baljit Rai and others –Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN. […]<\/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-138169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 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-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-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=\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T03:34:52+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=\"9 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-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T03:34:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1751,\"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-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T03:34:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 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 Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 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-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T03:34:52+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T03:34:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009"},"wordCount":1751,"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-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009","name":"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T03:34:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-baljit-rai-and-others-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Baljit Rai And Others on 5 October, 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\/138169","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=138169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}