{"id":152629,"date":"2002-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002"},"modified":"2015-02-15T06:53:30","modified_gmt":"2015-02-15T01:23:30","slug":"chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 825  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nCHANDER PAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF HARYANA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/02\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    (With Crl.A. No.826\/2000)
\nJ U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants in these two criminal appeals are accused
\nNos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.24\/1993 on the file of the
\nlearned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. They along with 3 other
\npersons, namely, Dharambir, Dharam Singh and Kewal Ram
\nwere chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Sections
\n302, 324 read with Section 34 IPC by the Police Station NIT,
\nFaridabad, for having committed the murder of one Ravinder
\nKumar on 1.8.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. The learned Sessions
\nJudge while acquitting 3 of the accused, who are not before us,
\nconvicted Chander Pal, appellant in Crl. A. No.825\/2000 under
\nSection 302, and Rajinder, appellant in Crl.A. No.826\/2000
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced
\nthem to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each in
\ndefault to undergo RI for 6 months. Appeal filed by these
\nconvicted appellants and the appeal and revision filed against
\nthe acquittal of some of the accused and for enhancement of
\nsentence to capital punishment came to be dismissed by the
\nHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh vide its
\njudgment in Crl.A. Nos.458-DB & 469-DB of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is against the said judgment and conviction imposed
\non the appellants by the High Court confirming the conviction
\nand sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the
\nappellants are now before us in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution case narrated in brief is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants herein were known to deceased Ravinder
\nKumar and on 31.7.1992 when they were playing the game of
\nLudo at the shop of Kewal Ram, (accused No.5), an argument
\nensued between the appellant Chander Pal and the deceased,
\nduring the course of which it is alleged that the deceased
\nslapped Chander Pal. According to the prosecution, this
\nincident was witnessed by one Dolly alias Sanjiv who was
\nexamined in the Sessions Court as PW-5 as also by PW-6
\nLajpat Rai. Being infuriated by the said affront of having been
\nslapped, it is contended by the prosecution that the appellants
\nherein along with the acquitted accused persons hatched a
\nconspiracy to do away with the deceased, in furtherance of
\nwhich it is stated that on 1.8.1992 at about 10.30 a.m., the
\nsecond appellant herein, namely, Rajinder went to the house of
\nthe deceased and called him on the pretext of having to talk to
\nhim. This was done in the presence of the brother of the
\ndeceased, Bhim Sen who was examined before the trial court as
\nPW-1. The deceased who answered the request of Rajinder,
\nwalked with him to a place which is about 60 yards away from
\nthe house of the deceased, they were joined by the first
\nappellant Chander Pal and other accused persons who came
\nthere on a scooter and a motor cycle and while the second
\nappellant Rajinder and other acquitted accused persons held the
\ndeceased, the first appellant Chander Pal is alleged to have
\nstabbed the deceased, causing him 2 incised wounds on the
\nchest and abdomen and another incised wound on his thigh as
\nalso a small abrasion caused by a blunt weapon used by one of
\nthe acquitted accused. The prosecution further states that this
\nincident in question was noticed by PW-2 Ashok Kumar who
\nwas the owner of the tea-stall in front of which the said incident
\ntook place, and it is also stated that the said Ashok Kumar when
\nhe tried to intervene in the fight, suffered a minor injury on the
\nposterior aspect of his left forearm. It is further stated that the
\ndeceased was then taken to Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad,
\nwhere on arrival he was declared dead by the doctor.
\nThereafter, on getting information from the hospital authorities,
\nPW-11  Manmohan Singh, ASI, took charge of the
\ninvestigation and went to the hospital and on reaching there he
\nrecorded a statement  Ex. PA  made by PW-1, Bhim Sen,
\nbrother of the deceased. Based on the said statement
\n(complaint), a case was registered and inquest proceedings were
\nheld by said PW-11. During the course of the said proceedings,
\nPW-11 is supposed to have inspected the place of occurrence
\nand lifted blood stained earth from there. In the meantime, the
\ndead body of the victim was sent for post mortem examination
\nwhich was conducted on the very same day by Dr. Amar Bajaj,
\nPW-9 at B.R. Hospital, Faridabad who, after examining the
\nwounds referred to hereinabove, opined that the death had
\noccurred due to the injuries to the vital organs leading to shock
\nand haemorrhage which was the ultimate cause of death. It is
\nfurther stated that PW-2 was medically examined by Dr. A K
\nGupta, PW-3 of the hospital at Faridabad on 1.8.1992 and the
\ndoctor then noted an injury in the shape of a reddish contusion
\non the posterior aspect of the left forearm. The prosecution’s
\nfurther case is that the appellants herein and others were
\napprehended by PW-11 on 14.8.1992 and he also took into
\ncustody a scooter from Dharam Singh and a motorcycle from
\nDharambir, the acquitted accused. The further case of the
\nprosecution is that on interrogation on 17.8.1992, the first
\nappellant Chander Pal led them to the recovery of a knife Ex. P-
\n1 which according to the prosecution was used in the stabbing
\nof the deceased. It is further stated that an iron rod Ex. P-2 was
\nrecovered at the instance of Rajinder, second appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be relevant at this point of time to note that Dr. S.
\nRaina, PW-4, who first saw the deceased when he was brought
\nto the Escorts Medical Centre, Faridabad, had sent an
\nintimation to the jurisdictional Police in the form of a
\ncommunication in Ex. PE wherein it is seen that he had
\nrecorded that the deceased was brought to the said hospital by
\none Subhash Baweja, resident of 3-G\/96, NIT, Faridabad. On
\nhis statement, it was noted that the age of the deceased was 26
\nyears and that the place of the incident was shown to be at
\nMarket No.3, Near Kalyanpur Jhuggi by a group of persons
\nwhile the deceased was taking tea. The name of the accused
\nwas not mentioned. The doctor as per Ex. PE has also stated
\nthat the age mentioned in the said Ex. PE was later corrected to
\n26 years on the information given by the relatives of the patient
\nwho reported at the time of preparation of the card of the
\npatient.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn regard to the motive, the prosecution has relied on the
\nevidence of PW-5 & PW-6, while in regard to the incident of
\n1.8.1992, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-1,
\nthe brother of the deceased, and PW-2, Ashok Kumar, the
\nowner of the tea-stall who, according to them, along with
\nMohan Lal had witnessed the incident in question. It may be
\nnoted at this stage that neither Subhash Baweja who took the
\ndeceased to the hospital nor Mohan Lal who was the other eye-
\nwitness to the incident was examined by the prosecution. The
\nprosecution also relied on the evidence of recovery of the knife
\nas also the other weapons. The learned Sessions Judge after trial
\nand on consideration of the material on record, accepted the
\nevidence of PW-5 who had stated that he had witnessed the
\naltercation between the deceased on the one hand and the
\nappellants herein on 31.7.1992 in the vedio shop of A-5 when
\nthe deceased allegedly slapped the appellant Chander Pal which
\nincident he reported to PW-1 on the very same day. Having
\naccepted the motive pointed out by the prosecution, the learned
\nSessions Judge accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 partially,
\ninasmuch as the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was accepted in
\nregard to the appellants herein, but was rejected with reference
\nto the 3 acquitted accused persons. It came to the conclusion
\nthat the evidence of these witnesses was reliable enough to base
\na conviction as against these appellants even though same was
\nnot acceptable in regard to other accused. It held that the non-
\nexamination of Subhash Baweja and Mohan Lal did not in any
\nway affect the prosecution case, hence, found these two
\nappellants guilty and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn appeal, as already stated, the High Court concurred
\nwith the findings of the Sessions Court and the appeals filed by
\nthe appellants herein came to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Crl. A. No.825\/2000, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned
\nsenior counsel appearing for Chander Pal, contended that the
\nentire prosecution case, on the face of it is unacceptable, being
\nfull of contradictions and improbabilities. According to the
\nlearned counsel, the courts below seem to have given the
\nbenefit of doubt to the prosecution rather than to the defence.
\nHe contended that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge
\nin appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses is so inconsistent
\ninasmuch as the learned Judge while rejecting the evidence of
\nPWs. 1 and 2 on certain factual foundations, seriously erred in
\naccepting the very same evidence on the very same factual
\nfoundation in regard to the appellants. He also submitted that
\nthe material contradictions pointed out by the defence have
\nbeen very casually rejected by the learned Sessions Judge who
\nalso failed to draw adverse inference in regard to the non-
\nexamination of at least two very material and independent
\nwitnesses. He submitted that non-examination of Subhash
\nBaweja who had taken the victim to the hospital and had given
\ncertain particulars of the place of the incident, shakes the very
\nfoundation of the prosecution case and further he submits that
\nthe place mentioned by Subhash Baweja to the doctor was an
\nentirely a different place than that shown in the prosecution
\ncase. He submits that in the absence of any plausible
\nexplanation both in regard to the contradictions found in the
\ncase of the prosecution as to the place of the incident as also the
\nreason for non-examination of this Subhash Baweja, the case of
\nthe prosecution becomes unbelievable. Arguing further, he
\ncontended that Mohan Lal is another person whose name has
\ncome out in the course of the prosecution evidence to show that
\nhe was also an eye-witness to the incident and the reason given
\nby the prosecution for his non-examination as “unnecessary”
\ngives rise to a suspicion that the prosecution was not prepared
\nto produce independent witnesses in this case. He also doubted
\nthe timing of the complaint of PW-1 which is stated to be at
\n12.30 p.m. This doubt as to the recording of the complaint is
\nbased on the fact that the F.I.R. had reached the jurisdictional
\nMagistrate only at 6 p.m. While the court was only 2-3 kms.
\nfrom the Police Station, this unexplained delay, according to
\nlearned counsel, is fatal to the prosecution case. He also
\nexpressed a doubt as to how PW-11, the investigating officer,
\ncame to know of the incident because intimation from the
\nhospital had gone only to the police out post at the hospital and
\nthe explanation of PW-11, that an unknown person telephoned
\nto him, cannot be believed because there was no telephone in
\nhis Police Station. The learned counsel ridiculed the
\nexplanation of PW-11 that he was informed of the crime in the
\ntelephone of a shop nearby by pointing out how could a
\nstranger know the telephone number of that shop and the
\narrangement PW-11 had with that shop. He submitted that the
\nevidence of PWs-1 and 5 are that of interested witness and not
\nworthy of acceptance on their own showing. He pointed out that
\nPW-5 had been suspended by his employer Escorts factory at
\nFaridabad on the ground that he had committed theft and that
\nthere are such material contradictions and improvements in his
\nevidence which on the face of it, show that he is not a truthful
\nwitness. In regard to PW-1, it is argued by learned counsel that
\nhis evidence that he saw the incident from outside his house
\nitself shows that he is not a truthful witness inasmuch as it is
\nseen from the prosecution evidence itself that the place of
\nincident cannot be seen from the house of PW-1 or even on
\nimmediately on coming into the street. That apart, it is also
\npointed out that this witness, according to PW-2, came to the
\nplace of incident only after the attack on deceased was over and
\nwhen the accused persons were fleeing from the place of
\nincident. It is also pointed out that this witness being the brother
\nof deceased is an interested witness, hence, courts below ought
\nnot to have been relied upon to his evidence. In regard to PW-2,
\nlearned counsel contends that assuming that PW-2 could have
\nbeen present at the place of the incident his evidence in regard
\nto the identity of the accused persons, could not have been
\naccepted because he did not know these accused persons and
\nthere being no identification parade, it is not safe to rely upon
\nhis sole testimony to convict the appellant. He also points out
\nthat even though PW-2 stated that he helped to carry the
\ndeceased who was bleeding profusely to the hospital, there were
\nno blood stains on his clothes which is highly improbable, and
\nso far as the injury suffered by him is concerned, apart from the
\nfact that this part of his evidence was not accepted by the trial
\ncourt, on the face of it such evidence is unbelievable and at
\nleast unsafe to base a conviction. The learned counsel also
\npointed out that, according to PW-2, A-1 was in police custody
\nfrom 2.8.1992 and he had seen the said accused in police
\ncustody. Therefore, the Police had  facilitated\t the identification
\nof this accused without any identification parade, hence the
\nidentification of A-1 by PW-2 ought not to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile Mr. U R Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor A-2, concurs with the arguments addressed by Mr. Sushil
\nKumar on behalf of A-1 and he further supplemented it by
\ncontending that there are umpteen contradictions between the
\nevidence of PWs.1 and 2 rendering it unsafe to rely upon their
\nevidence to base a conviction. He also pointed out that while
\nother accused persons who have been attributed the same overt
\nacts of A-2 have been acquitted by disbelieving the prosecution
\ncase in regard to them on the common evidence, he said that
\nthere is no way by which the courts below could have accepted
\nthe very same evidence in regard to the second appellant to
\nconvict him.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn reply, Mr. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the
\nState, submitted that the very fact that the complaint in question
\nhas named all the accused persons and had come into existence
\nas early as 12.30, barely an hour after the death of the deceased,
\nitself shows that the prosecution has come out with a clean
\ncase. He further submitted that PWs.1, 2 and 5 do not have any
\nreason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellants or other
\naccused and at least PW-2 not being an interested witness
\nwhose presence at the place of the incident cannot be doubted,
\nhas rendered a natural version of the incident which took place
\non 1.8.1992 and there is no reason why his evidence cannot be
\naccepted. According to him, the contradictions, if any, relied
\nupon by the learned counsel for the appellants herein, are not
\nmaterial contradictions so as to turn down the case of the
\nprosecution. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel
\nfor the State, on many material aspects the defence has not even
\nquestioned the veracity of the prosecution case, he urged that
\nthe defence evidence adduced by examining DW-2 cannot be
\naccepted because the documents relied upon by the defence are
\nnot maintained in the normal course of business. He also
\ncontended that the so-called telegram and petitions sent are all
\nconcocted documents. He also urged that the appellants were
\nabsconding for nearly 13 days which itself goes to show the
\nculpability of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The
\nprosecution case was that on 31.7.1992 there was an altercation
\nbetween the deceased and the appellants herein while playing a
\ngame of Ludo, this is based on the evidence of PWs. 5 and 6.
\nSo far as PW-6 is concerned, for very good reasons the courts
\nbelow have not chosen to place any reliance on his evidence. It
\nis pointed out that the father of the deceased was a Police
\nofficial and PW-6 was also a Police official in the same Police
\nforce, therefore, the investigating agency has gone out of the
\nway to make out a case against the appellants and other accused
\npersons to solve an undetected murder. This suggestion of the
\ndefence finds support from the fact that prosecution has chosen
\nto examine PW-6 in support of its case. Coming now to the
\nevidence of PW-5 in regard to the incident on 31.7.1992, it is to
\nbe seen that this witness is a neighbour of the deceased, and
\nwas known to the family of the deceased to that extent this
\nwitness is an interested witness. His presence at the time of the
\nincident was not corroborated by any other independent source.
\nThis witness states that during the course of scuffle on
\n31.7.1992, he also sustained an injury while trying to intervene
\nin the fight, which injury was caused by the second appellant
\nherein. But in the cross-examination, he states that he did not go
\nto the doctor to get the injury treated and it is only when the
\nPolice came to record his statement they took him to the doctor
\nand got the injury treated. However, it is seen from his evidence
\nthat he did not state before the Police that the injury on him was
\ninflicted by Rajinder though he improved his statement before
\nthe court and stated so in his examination-in-chief. That apart,
\nin the examination in chief, he stated that the incident on
\n31.7.1992 took place at about 6.30 p.m. while in his statement
\nbefore the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had mentioned
\nthe time as 4 p.m. These contradictions in his statement before
\nthe court when compared with the previous statement and
\ncoupled with the fact that he is admittedly a neighbour and
\nfriend of the deceased and his brother, makes us feel that it is
\nnot safe to rely upon his evidence to accept the prosecution case
\nthat the incident in question on 31.7.1992 had taken place and
\nthat the same was witnessed by this witness.\n<\/p>\n
\tReverting back to the prosecution case in regard to the
\nincident of 1.8.1992, it is to be noticed that the same is based on
\nthe evidence of PWs.1 and 2. We will first consider the
\nevidence of PW-1 who is none other than the brother of the
\ndeceased. It is on record that he hails from an affluent family of
\nthe area and he states that on 1.8.1992 at about 10 a.m. the
\nsecond accused herein came to his house and took the deceased
\nwith a view to have a talk with him. He further states after
\nabout 10 minutes, he heard the shrieks for help from his brother
\nand when he rushed out of the house, he saw that some of the
\naccused including the second appellant herein had caught hold
\nof his brother and the first appellant was inflicting blows with a
\nknife. He specifically states in his examination-in-chief that the
\nblows were inflicted on the deceased within his view. This he
\nsays in respect of his position as at that point of time he was in
\nfront of his house. The prosecution has produced a Memo and a
\nsketch prepared by PW-7 which indicates that from the place of
\nPW-1’s residence even from outside the house, it is not possible
\nto see the place of incident because there is a bend in the road
\nwhich blocks the vision.  Therefore, it is most unlikely that PW-
\n2 could have actually seen the attack on his brother. This
\ninference of ours is also supported by the fact that PW-2 in his
\nevidence specifically states that PW-1 arrived at the place of the
\nincident when the accused persons started fleeing from the
\nscene of occurrence. It is also to be noted at this point that
\nthough it is the prosecution case that PW-1 accompanied the
\ndeceased to the hospital, in the records of the hospital, it is
\nnowhere noted that he did so. On the contrary, the contents of
\nEx. PE show that it was Subhash Baweja who brought him to
\nthe hospital and who could give the particulars of the deceased
\nwherein it is stated that the deceased was of 29 years. Notings
\nin Ex. PE and the evidence of PW-3, the doctor show that
\nsubsequently at the instance of a relative, this age was changed
\nfrom 29 to 26 years. This was clearly at a later point of time, as
\nstated by the doctor. If actually PW-1 had accompanied the
\ndeceased to the hospital then it was reasonable to believe that
\nhe would have given the particulars of the deceased to the
\ndoctor himself, and that if he had actually noticed the incident
\nin question, the actual place as put forth by the prosecution in
\ntheir case would have been mentioned in Ex. PE and not the
\nplace as given by Subhash Baweja. And also the fact that the
\ndeceased’s age was wrongly mentioned in the first instance and
\nit was later on corrected from 29 to 26 years which the doctor
\nsays was on the information given by the relatives of the patient
\nreported at the time of preparation of the card indicates that
\nwhen the deceased was brought to the hospital, his relatives
\nincluding PW-1 were not present and it was Subhash Baweja
\nwho took the deceased to the hospital and who described the
\nincident and place of incident to the doctor which was recorded
\nas Ex. PE. In this background, the non-examination of Subhash
\nBaweja throws considerable doubt on this part of the
\nprosecution case as to where exactly the incident in question
\ntook place and why Subhash Baweja whose presence was not
\nmentioned by PWs. 1 and 2 at the place of the incident or in the
\nhospital came to pick up the deceased and bring him to the
\nhospital and also give a  different version as to the place of
\nincident then the one put forth by the prosecution. PW-11 who
\nwas the investigating officer in his evidence before the court
\nhas given no explanation whatsoever as to why Subhash
\nBaweja was not examined even though his complete address
\nwas mentioned in Ex. PE recorded by the doctor. This lapse on
\nthe part of the prosecution also gives rise to a doubt as to the
\nfact whether PWs.1 and 2 did at all witness the incident in
\nquestion or the same actually took place near the tea stall of
\nPW-2. At this point, it is also relevant to notice the fact that
\naccording to the evidence of PW-1, there was another eye-
\nwitness to the incident, namely, Mohan Lal who according to
\nthis witness, witnessed the attack on the deceased and also
\naccompanied the deceased to the hospital and that Mohan Lal
\nwas also present in the hospital when the Police came there.
\nThis witness is also not examined and from the records, we find
\nthat he was given up as “unnecessary”. We find it extremely
\ndifficult to accept this explanation and non-examination of both
\nSubhash Baweja and Mohan Lal, in our opinion further throws
\nvery strong doubt on the prosecution case. As a matter of fact
\nMohan Lal played a very important role as a Panch witness in
\nthe seizure of the blood stained earth from a place where the
\ndeceased was attacked,\t  and according to the Panchnama of
\nseizure, the seal put on the package in which the earth was
\npacked, was given to the possession of Mohan Lal. Thus
\nMohan Lal seems to have played an important role even in the
\ninvestigation and still the prosecution has failed to examine this
\nwitness. There is one more reason why we are hesitant to accept
\nthe evidence of PW-1. That is because of the fact that PW-1
\nwas not familiar with the first appellant Chander Pal and the
\ndefence has suggested to this witness that he could not have
\nidentified A-1 because he was really not known to him. It is
\nalso suggested that this witness while mentioning the names of
\nother accused persons in the complaint, this witness has
\nmentioned either the name of their fathers or at least their caste
\nand place of residence while in regard to the appellant Chander
\nPal he has neither mentioned the name of his father nor the
\nplace of the incident. The explanation given by PW-1 to the
\nsuggestion made in this regard to him by the defence is that he
\nused to visit the Kelvinator factory where A-1 was working for
\nthe purpose of procuring business from the factory and during
\nthose visits he had seen Chander Pal, hence he was able to
\nidentify the accused. We notice that his visit to Kelvinator
\nfactory on previous occasions is not corroborated by any other
\nevidence; be it oral or documentary. It has also come in
\nevidence that the said factory engages about 5,000 to 7,000
\nworkmen and this witness has not given any special reason why
\nhe specifically noticed Chander Pal so as to remember his name
\nand identify him at the time of the assault out of those many
\nemployees of the Kelvinator factory. In the background of the
\ninterestedness of this witness, and the material contradiction in
\nhis evidence even this suggestion of his not knowing Chander
\nPal becomes relevant. Therefore, we find it difficult to place
\nreliance on the evidence of this witness.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis brings us to the consideration of the other eye-
\nwitness PW-2, Ashok Kumar. This witness of course is stated
\nto be a person owning a tea-stall where according to the
\nprosecution the incident in question took place. He stated in his
\nexamination in chief that on 1.8.1992 at about 10.30 a.m. while
\nhe was proceeding to his tea-stall, he saw the deceased and
\nsecond appellant Rajinder talking to each other and at that time
\nthe accused persons came on a scooter and a motorcycle and all
\n4 of them pounced on the deceased while second appellant
\ncaught hold of the deceased. The first appellant inflicted blows
\non him with a knife. He stated that he tried to rescue the
\ndeceased but one of the acquitted accused Dharambir attacked
\non his left forearm with an iron rod. He further stated that on
\nhearing the cries of the deceased, his brother PW-1 arrived and
\nthe said incident was witnessed by Mohan Lal also. He stated
\nthat after the accused persons left the place of occurrence, the
\ndeceased was removed to Escorts Hospital at Faridabad, where
\nhe was declared brought dead and his statement was recorded
\nboth in the hospital as well as at the place of occurrence. He
\nstated that Mohan Lal attested the Memo Ex. PA which was the
\nPanchnama prepared by the Thanedar for having collected the
\nblood stained earth. This witness has admitted that there are
\nabout 1,000 people residing in the Jhuggis near the place of
\nincident and that the house of PW-1 was about 60 yards away
\nfrom the place of the incident. He stated that the attack on the
\ndeceased lasted for about 1 or 2 minutes. He specifically stated
\nin his evidence that when PW-1 arrived at the place of incident,
\nthe accused persons were in the process of fleeing after
\ninflicting injuries on the deceased. This shows that there is
\ncontradiction between the evidence of this witness and that of
\nPW-1 who in his evidence has stated that he saw the incident in
\nquestion and identified the accused who assaulted the deceased.
\nThis witness also specifically stated that he did not know
\nChander Pal before the incident in question. Therefore, there
\nbeing no identification parade, it becomes rather difficult to
\naccept the evidence of this witness when he identifies Chander
\nPal, appellant herein, as one of the assailants. It is, however,
\nvery interesting to note that this witness in course of his
\nevidence given before the court had stated that he had seen
\nChander Pal, the accused in Police custody at the Police Station
\non 2.8.1992. If this evidence is correct then it throws a very
\nserious doubt on the prosecution case that if actually the first
\nappellant was arrested on 1.8.1992 as suggested by the defence
\nto PW-11 and as stated by PW-2 then it shows that till
\n14.8.1992, the day when he was shown to be arrested by Police,
\nthe prosecution had no case against him and his arrest on
\n1.8.1992 also facilitated his identification by the prosecution
\nwitness. In this background, if we were to examine the evidence
\nof PW-2, we get an impression that he is a person who seems to
\nbe waiting to help the prosecution in this case beyond the realm
\nof truth. There is another unanswered question in the
\nprosecution case i.e. why no prosecution witness spoken about
\nthe role played by Subhash Baweja. It is to be noted that none
\nof the prosecution witnesses including PW-2 speaks about the
\npresence of Subhash Baweja either at the place of incident or in
\nthe hospital. This omission to mention the name of Subhash
\nBaweja by witnesses is very ominous. The absence of
\nexplanation in this regard throws a cloud of suspicion on the
\nevidence of PW-2 as well as PWs.1 and 11. That apart, the
\nsupposed injury suffered by PW-2 as having been caused by
\none of the accused Dharambir has been totally disbelieved by
\nthe Sessions Court as also the High Court. To this extent, it is
\nnot even accepted by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
\t  With all these contradictions and strong doubts created in
\nour mind with reference to certain facts which are referred by
\nus hereinabove, we think it rather difficult to place reliance on
\nthe evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in the background of the fact of
\nthe suggestion made by the defence that the murder in question
\nwas a blind one without any witness and only because the
\ndeceased was the son of a former police official, the
\ninvestigating officer has implicated these accused persons with
\nextraordinary zeal of obtaining a conviction. In this regard, we
\nwill have to refer to certain peculiar facts which are found on
\nrecord. As per the evidence of PW-1, the accused persons were
\narrested on 14.8.1992. This is spoken to by PW-11,
\ninvestigating officer. Though according to the prosecution the
\naccused persons were all known to them and knew their places
\nof residence and work, no explanation is given why they could
\nnot be arrested earlier. The IO in his examination before the
\ncourt has not given any explanation as to what efforts he made
\nto trace out these accused persons. Nowhere in his evidence he
\nstates whether these accused persons were absconding. He
\nmerely states that the accused persons were arrested by him on
\n14.8.1992. He of course denies the suggestion that the first
\nappellant was nabbed on 2.8.1992 itself but then there is
\nsufficient material on record to show that the arrest of this
\naccused person, as stated by PW-11 cannot be believed. There
\nis a series of telegrams which were sent by the brother-in-law of
\nthe first appellant to the Chief Minister of Haryana, Deputy
\nCommissioner of Faridabad, Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana
\nHigh Court, Inspector-General of Haryana as also an
\napplication to the C.J.M., Faridabad, which were made on
\nvarious dates before this accused was supposed to have been
\narrested by the Police i.e. on 14.8.1992. In these
\ncommunications, it was specifically averred that the appellant
\nChander Pal was arrested by the Police on 2.8.1992 and had
\nbeen kept in illegal detention. The prosecution pleads that these
\ntelegrams were sent deliberately to create evidence to malign
\nthe prosecution. Assuming that this explanation of the
\nprosecution is plausible, but then we cannot brush aside a
\npositive statement made by PW-2 to which a brief reference has
\nalready been made by us earlier in this judgment. As stated
\nabove, this witness PW-2, Ashok Kumar, has stated in his
\ncross-examination thus : “I had seen Chander Pal accused in the
\ncustody of Police at the premises of Police Station. He was seen
\nin the custody of Police by me on 2.8.1992. His photographs
\nwere not taken by the Police in my presence.” This evidence of
\nPW-2 is neither clarified in the re-examination nor any
\nexplanation has been given by PW-11 or any other prosecution
\nwitness. That being so, we will have to accept that it is a fact
\nand that this accused was as a matter of fact arrested by the
\nPolice on 2.8.1992 itself. This is somewhat corroborated by the
\ndefence evidence wherein the timesheet of Kelvinator factory
\nreflecting the entry and exit of first accused to the said factory
\nin the course of his work  was produced through DW-1 and the
\nsaid timesheets are kept on record by the Sessions Court. A
\nperusal of this timesheet shows that this accused had marked
\nhis presence in the factory in the forenoon of 31.7.1992. DW-1
\nhas stated in his evidence that the accused was to have joined
\nduty again on 1.8.1992 in the afternoon but since  then he was
\nmarked absent because he had not reported for duty. This fits in
\nwith the theory of the defence that this accused person was
\narrested by the Police on 1.8.1992, and was seen by PW-2 in
\ntheir custody. In our opinion if as a matter of fact the first
\naccused was arrested and was kept in custody from 2.8.1992, it
\nbecomes abundantly clear how PWs.1 and 2 so easily identified
\nthe first appellant with whom they were not familiar till then.\n<\/p>\n
\t  We will now briefly examine the approach of the learned
\nSessions Judge in regard to the prosecution evidence as pointed
\nout to us by learned counsel for the appellants. While
\ndiscussing the evidence of the prosecution with reference to the
\nacquitted accused, this is how learned Judge considered the
\nprosecution evidence :\n<\/p>\n
\t“However, the case of prosecution against
\nDharambir and Dharam Singh was of course
\nsymptomatic of deficiencies owing to failure on its
\n(prosecution) part to lead positive and concrete
\nevidence on the point of identity of these two
\nassailants. In the first information report, Ex. PA,
\nDharam Singh accused was not named as assailant.
\nThe name of that assailant was described therein as
\nBiru. It was not at all the case of prosecution that
\nDharam Singh accused was also addressed by the
\nname of Biru. Both of them were described therein
\nas belonging to Thakur community and residents
\nof Asaoti. However, that version has convincingly
\nbeen demonstrated on record to be factually
\nincorrect. On the own telling of Bhim Sen (PW 1),
\nhe had not mentioned the father’s name of either
\nthat person named Biru or other accused
\nDharambir. In his deposition in Court, he (PW 1)
\nhad disowned the fact that he had described both
\nthe assailants as belonging to Thakur community
\nand residents of village Aasoti but he was duly
\nconfronted with that statement, Ex. PA, where they
\nwere described as such. Admittedly, he had never
\nvisited the house of either Dharam Singh or
\nDharambir accused and had also no business
\ndealings with them. He was also frank enough to
\nconcede that he had no dealings of any kind with
\nDharambir-accused. In his statement before the
\nCourt, he has no doubt asserted that he had been
\nseeing Dharambir playing Ludo in the company of
\nChander Pal and Ravinder but had to admit that he
\nhad not made any such statement before the police.
\nNo evidenciary value could, thus, be attached to
\nthe vague and bald statement made by him that he
\nknew both these accused from before. Had that
\nbeen so, there was no question of his having made
\nan apparent mistake in describing their names,
\nparentage, community or place of residence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting
\nthe prosecution evidence based on the reasoning found in the
\nparagraph extracted hereinabove, we fail to understand how the
\nvery same evidence could be accepted in regard to the
\nappellants herein. Every one of the reasoning mentioned in the
\nabove paragraph of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, if
\napplied on the same yardstick to the prosecution evidence in
\nregard to the appellants herein, we do not find any symptomatic
\ndifferences in regard to applying the said evidence to the
\nappellants herein and rejecting the same with reference to the
\nacquitted accused. In our opinion, on the parity of the reasoning
\nadopted by learned Sessions Judge, the case of the appellants
\ncould not have been distinguished from those of the acquitted
\naccused persons. It is this fundamental error in the judgment of
\nlearned Sessions Judge which has denied the appellants herein
\nthe benefit of doubt which should have been made available to
\nthe appellants. We need not dwell upon the confirming
\njudgment of the High Court in this regard very much because in
\nour opinion it has merely accepted and confirmed the judgment
\nof learned Sessions Judge without noticing the material
\ndiscrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, without noticing
\nthe effect of non-examination of Subhash Baweja and Mohan
\nLal and without taking into consideration the effect of illegal
\ndetention or arrest of first appellant on 2.8.1992 itself or the
\nreasoning of the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the
\nprosecution case in regard to the acquitted accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons stated above, we on a re-appreciation of
\nthe entire material on record and taking into consideration the
\narguments addressed on behalf of the parties, are satisfied that
\nthe prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
\nthat these appellants are the assailants of deceased Ravinder and
\nare responsible for his murder. Therefore, we allow these
\nappeals, set aside the judgment and conviction imposed on
\nthem by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court and
\nacquit the accused persons. They shall be set at liberty
\nforthwith, if not required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(N Santosh Hegde)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t…………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
February 7, 2002.\t\t\t\t(Doraiswamy Raju)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, Doraiswamy Raju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 825 of 2000 PETITIONER: CHANDER PAL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/2002 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju JUDGMENT: (With Crl.A. No.826\/2000) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-15T01:23:30+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T01:23:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":6356,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-15T01:23:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-15T01:23:30+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T01:23:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002"},"wordCount":6356,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002","name":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-15T01:23:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chander-pal-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-7-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chander Pal vs The State Of Haryana on 7 February, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152629","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=152629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}