{"id":168411,"date":"2008-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-05T03:48:02","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T22:18:02","slug":"yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008<\/div>\n
           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n                    -1-\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryna at Chandigarh.\n\n                  Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n\n                  Date of decision:22-8-2008.\n\nYogesh Kumar.\n\n                                               ...Appellant.\n\n            Versus\n\nState of Haryana.\n\n                                               ...Respondent.\n\n            ...\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.\n\n            ...\n\nPresent:    Mr. Jagdish Manchanda Advocate for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana.\n\n            ...\n\nK. C. Puri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellant along with other co-accused faced trial in<\/p>\n
case FIR No.320 of 21.8.1990,under Sections 147, 148,149 454,<\/p>\n
435,436 477 IPC and \u00be of the Prevention of Damage to Public<\/p>\n
Property Act, 1984, Police Station Ambala Cantt. Vide judgment<\/p>\n
dated 11.1.1997 passed by Shri P.L.Ahuja, the then Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Ambala, the co-accused of the appellant were
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
acquitted but he was convicted under Sections 148, 451, 435, 436,<\/p>\n
152, 186, 353 read with Section 149 IPC and \u00be of the Prevention<\/p>\n
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and vide separate order<\/p>\n
dated 13.1.1997, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Damage to Public Property Act, read with Section 149 IPC. He<\/p>\n
was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two<\/p>\n
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and in default of payment of<\/p>\n
fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months,<\/p>\n
under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property<\/p>\n
Act, read with Section 149 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,000\/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC. He was further<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two<\/p>\n
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and in default of payment of<\/p>\n
fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC.<\/p>\n
He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
period of one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC. He was<\/p>\n
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
one year under Section 451 read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 152<\/p>\n
read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
three months under Section 186 read with Section 149 IPC and<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 353 read with<\/p>\n
Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run<\/p>\n
concurrently. However, the learned trial Court acquitted co-<\/p>\n
accused of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
           The instant appeal is directed against the said<\/p>\n
judgment\/order.\n<\/p>\n
           The brief facts, as are borne out from the record, are<\/p>\n
that on 21.9.1990, SI Om Parkash (since expired) alongwith ASI<\/p>\n
Tara Chand (PW18), HC Jai Singh (PW19) and other officials was<\/p>\n
present at General Post Office, Ambala Cantt in connection with<\/p>\n
duty in respect of anti-reservation duty. At about 11.45 A.M, a<\/p>\n
mob of 350 persons came from the side of Employment Exchange.<\/p>\n
The appellant along with his co-accused Raj Kumar, Amit Jindal,<\/p>\n
Lovely, Sanjay Mittal, Baljinder Dagar, Vivek, Lalit Kumar,<\/p>\n
Naveen Bhatnagar, Naveen alias Bittu were members of that mob.<\/p>\n
Three boys were riding on motor cycle No.HNC-5960. They were
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
holding one Pipi containing petrol.           Hanni, Daljit, President<\/p>\n
G.M.N.College, Ambala Cantt, Dhiraj, Vijay Kumar, Sandeep<\/p>\n
Duggal, M.L.Sharma, Raju, Parveen, Anil Kumar, Sukhvinder<\/p>\n
Singh, Pardeep Khera, Raj Kishore, Suresh Kumar, Parveen<\/p>\n
Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Sunil, Ved Parkash, Vijay, Baljit, Veda and<\/p>\n
Kala etc. were also members of that mob. Those persons were<\/p>\n
carrying Dandas, Lathis and pieces of stones. They were shouting<\/p>\n
that G.P.O .be set on fire and money be looted and Government<\/p>\n
vehicles be set on fire. The violent mob started pelting stones. The<\/p>\n
members of the mob sprinkled petrol on the building and set the<\/p>\n
same on fire. The police resorted to lathi charge and the crowd<\/p>\n
dispersed. Thereafter, the mob went to the office of Post Master<\/p>\n
General, Ambala Cantt and set it on fire. Some vehicles parked<\/p>\n
outside the office of Post Master General were also set on fire.<\/p>\n
Then the crowd came on Gol Chakkar and set a vehicle of Fire<\/p>\n
Brigade of military on fire. Appellant Yogesh Kumar sprinkled<\/p>\n
petrol and his servant Raj Kumar alias Raju lit fire. Then the mob<\/p>\n
went to the Super Bazar, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt and looted the<\/p>\n
articles of the shops and the shops were set on fire. Lathi charge<\/p>\n
was resorted to and thereafter the crowd went to the office of<\/p>\n
Excise and Taxation Department and set it on fire. Government<\/p>\n
vehicles parked in the compound were also set ablaze. The crowd
\n             Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
started pelting stones on police and ASI Tara Singh received<\/p>\n
injuries. Thereafter, the crowd dispersed. Om Parkash SI sent<\/p>\n
ruqqa Exhibit PE to the Police Station on the basis of which the<\/p>\n
present case was registered against the accused persons. He also<\/p>\n
prepared site plans Exhibits PH to PR. Accused persons were<\/p>\n
arrested.\n<\/p>\n
            After the completion of investigation and other usual<\/p>\n
formalities, challan was presented in the Court against the accused.<\/p>\n
            The appellant and his co-accused were accordingly<\/p>\n
charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
            In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution<\/p>\n
examined PW-1 J.P.S.Parmar, PW-2 Madan Lal, PW-3 Naresh<\/p>\n
Chand Sharma, PW-4 Constable Jaipal, PW-5 Roop Lal, PW-6<\/p>\n
Avtar Singh, PW-7 ASI Madan Lal, PW-8 Ram Mehar Chowkidar,<\/p>\n
PW-9 Tarlok Chand, PW-10 Satish Chander Wahi,PW-11 Tilak<\/p>\n
Raj Prasher, PW-12 Inder Pal, PW-13 Des Raj,            PW-14 Shri<\/p>\n
Kulwant Rai Kalra, Assistant Accounts Officer,PW-15 Subhash<\/p>\n
Goyal, PW-16 Gulshan Kumar, PW-17 Constable Parkash Chand,<\/p>\n
PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C,<\/p>\n
the accused pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead<\/p>\n
any evidence in their defence.\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
          The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted<\/p>\n
that, in this case, there were 20 accused who were charge-sheeted<\/p>\n
under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code as mentioned in<\/p>\n
the charge-sheet and under Section \u00be of the Prevention of Damage<\/p>\n
to Public Property Act. All the accused except the appellant have<\/p>\n
been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The other accused who<\/p>\n
have been arrested at the spot have even been acquitted on account<\/p>\n
of their non-identification. The learned trial Court has convicted<\/p>\n
the appellant on the basis of testimony of PW-18 ASI Tara Chand<\/p>\n
and PW-19 HC Jai Singh. Both these witnesses have stated that<\/p>\n
they have failed to identify any of the accused except appellant<\/p>\n
Yogesh Kumar. There was a reason for falsely implicating the<\/p>\n
appellant as the appellant was the leader of of Bhartiya Janta Yuva<\/p>\n
Morcha, Ambala and raised slogans against Inspector Sahib Ram,<\/p>\n
who was the then SHO of Police Station, Ambala Cantt. on many<\/p>\n
occasions prior to the occurrence. Inspector Sahib Ram was feeling<\/p>\n
aggrieved against the appellant on that count and only for this<\/p>\n
reason,   PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh<\/p>\n
identified the appellant in the Court. No identification parade was<\/p>\n
conducted by the police during investigation. So many private<\/p>\n
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and none of<\/p>\n
them has identified any of the accused including the appellant. The
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
identification by the Police Officer, for the first time in the Court,<\/p>\n
cannot be the basis of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been further submitted that according to the case<\/p>\n
of the prosecution, there was mob of 350 persons which indulged<\/p>\n
in unlawful activities including setting the Government vehicles<\/p>\n
and property on fire. On the same set of evidence, 19 accused have<\/p>\n
been acquitted and there was no reason for the trial Court to<\/p>\n
convict the appellant. The testimony of two official witnesses who<\/p>\n
were inimical towards the appellant has been wrongly relied upon<\/p>\n
by the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
           It has further been submitted that in the statements<\/p>\n
under Section 161 Cr.P.C of PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and PW-19<\/p>\n
HC Jai Singh, there was no specific mention that Yogesh Kumar<\/p>\n
Garg, appellant made any provocation regarding setting on fire of<\/p>\n
Government vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted<\/p>\n
that PW-19 HC Jai Singh in his cross-examination has stated that<\/p>\n
he has given the names of seven accused in his statement but when<\/p>\n
he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C,<\/p>\n
the names of many other accused were mentioned there. He further<\/p>\n
stated that the names of other persons, other than seven might have<\/p>\n
been written by the Investigating Officer, himself. So, it was
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that when the Investigating Officer can manipulate the<\/p>\n
names of many accused, in that case, it is highly unsafe to convict<\/p>\n
the accused on the testimony of that witness.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned State counsel has supported the judgment<\/p>\n
of the trial Court. He has submitted that the other accused have<\/p>\n
been acquitted as they have not been identified by the eye<\/p>\n
witnesses. PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh have<\/p>\n
supported the case against the appellant and his case is different<\/p>\n
from the other accused.\n<\/p>\n
           I have carefully considered the said submissions made<\/p>\n
by both sides and have gone through the record of the case.<\/p>\n
           The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant<\/p>\n
solely on the basis of testimony of PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and<\/p>\n
PW-19 HC Jai Singh. The prosecution has examined so many other<\/p>\n
private persons. None of them has identified the accused as culprit<\/p>\n
in the present case. Now, the question arises whether on the<\/p>\n
testimony of PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh<\/p>\n
conviction can be based. The answer to that question is in the<\/p>\n
negative. H.C. Jai Singh has stated that he has given the names of<\/p>\n
7 accused to the Investigating Officer and names of other accused<\/p>\n
have been mentioned by the Investigating Officer himself. So, in<\/p>\n
case his statement is taken as correct, in that case, the names of 13
\n           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused have been mentioned by the Investigating Officer himself.<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer was not examined as he expired during the<\/p>\n
pendency of case. So, when there were chances of manipulation of<\/p>\n
the names of 13 accused, in that case, the testimony of this witness<\/p>\n
cannot form basis of conviction of appellant. On the same set of<\/p>\n
evidence,all the accused except appellant have been acquitted.<\/p>\n
Even the accused who have been arrested at the spot have been<\/p>\n
acquitted by the trial Court. No identification parade was held at<\/p>\n
any stage of trial. The defence version is more probable and the<\/p>\n
possibility cannot be ruled out that PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and<\/p>\n
PW-19 HC Jai Singh have specifically named the accused on<\/p>\n
account of grudge of the SHO of the Police Station with the<\/p>\n
appellant as suggested to these witnesses. Needless to say, PW-18<\/p>\n
ASI Tara Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh being subordinates of<\/p>\n
Inspector Sahib Ram will toe to the line of his superior in<\/p>\n
identifying the appellant. Both these witnesses have also named<\/p>\n
other persons in the Court itself but those persons have been<\/p>\n
acquitted by the trial Court. So, no ground for convicting the<\/p>\n
appellant in such a serious offence is made out. In the FIR itself,<\/p>\n
the names of other accused are mentioned. The Court cannot do<\/p>\n
imparity with the co-accused situated in similar situation.<\/p>\n
           PW-18 ASI Tara Chand has stated that Vijay Mittal
\n              Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused caused him injury with the help of a piece of stone. Said<\/p>\n
Vijay Mittal has not even been recognised by this witness in the<\/p>\n
Court. The reason for falsely identifying the appellant is that he<\/p>\n
had raised slogans against Inspector Sahib Ram.<\/p>\n
             Further more, the statements of      PW-18 ASI Tara<\/p>\n
Chand and PW-19 HC Jai Singh are discrepant on material<\/p>\n
particulars. PW-18 ASI Tara Chand stated that the appellant<\/p>\n
sprinkled petrol and Raj Kumar accused set the vehicle of Fire<\/p>\n
Brigade on fire. But, PW-19 HC Jai Singh deposed that appellant<\/p>\n
Yogesh Kumar sprinkled petrol on the vehicle of Fire Brigade and<\/p>\n
he also set the said vehicle on fire. PW-18 ASI Tara Chand<\/p>\n
deposed that SHO Sahib Ram met him on PMH and they went to<\/p>\n
the Goal Chakkar in the vehicle of the SHO. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
PW-19 HC Jai Singh, who was also a member of the police party,<\/p>\n
stated that the SHO did not meet them. These material<\/p>\n
contradictions in the statements of PW-18 ASI Tara Chand and<\/p>\n
PW-19 HC Jai Singh shake the veracity of their testimony and no<\/p>\n
implicit reliance can be placed on their statements, particularly<\/p>\n
when they had a strong motive for falsely implicating the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             Moreover, it is not safe to base conviction of the<\/p>\n
appellant on the same set of evidence on which the other 19 co-\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                   -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused have been acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted.<\/p>\n
The impugned judgment\/order of the trial Court stand set aside and<\/p>\n
the appellant stands acquitted of the charges framed against him by<\/p>\n
giving him benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
           A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for<\/p>\n
strict compliance.<\/p>\n
\n\nAugust 22nd ,2008.                            ( K. C. Puri )\nJaggi                                            Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryna at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No.70-SB of 1997. Date of decision:22-8-2008. Yogesh Kumar. …Appellant. Versus State of Haryana. …Respondent. … Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. … Present: […]<\/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-168411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - 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\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-04T22:18:02+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T22:18:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2204,\"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\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T22:18:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - 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\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-04T22:18:02+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T22:18:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008"},"wordCount":2204,"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\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008","name":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T22:18:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-22-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/168411","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=168411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168411\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}