{"id":183455,"date":"2008-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-17T04:35:43","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T23:05:43","slug":"balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                         1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,                    CHANDIGARH\n\n                                 Crl. Appeal No.826-SB of 2000\n                                 Date of decision: September 19 , 2008\n\nBalbir Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of\nvillage Harraipur,District Bathinda.\n\n\n                                            ....... Appellant\/accused\n\n                                 Versus\nState of Punjab\n                                                  ........ Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\n\n\nPresent:           Mr. T.S.Sangha,Senior Advocate with Mr.\n                   H.S.Sangha,Advocate for the appellant.\n                   Mr. S.S.Bhullar,DAG, Punjab for the respondent.\n\n\n\nSham Sunder, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                   This appeal is directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence dated 21.8.2000, rendered by the<\/p>\n
Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which it convicted the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 18 of the<\/p>\n
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as<\/p>\n
‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a<\/p>\n
period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment<\/p>\n
of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one<\/p>\n
year, for having been found in possession 2 kgs. 100 grams of opium,<\/p>\n
without any permit or licence.\n<\/p>\n
2.           The facts, in brief, are that on 15.5.1995, ASI Chhota Ram,<\/p>\n
accompanied by other police officials, left the Police Station, by a Govt.<\/p>\n
Jeep for   patrol duty, in the area of villages Sukhladhi, Tarkhan Wala,<\/p>\n
Bagha etc. and when the Police party reached near village Bagha Balkar
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh, a public witness, came across it and he was also joined. When the<\/p>\n
police party reached Tarkhan Wala-Sukhladhi road crossing in the area of<\/p>\n
said village Bagha, accused Balbir Kaur was seen coming from the side of<\/p>\n
village Tarkhan Wala while carrying a bag. However, on seeing the Police<\/p>\n
party, she, at once, tried to give a slip by a hasty retreat. On suspicion she<\/p>\n
was apprehended. ASI Chhota Ram suspected that some contraband was<\/p>\n
being carried by her, in the bag, held by her. Accordingly the search of the<\/p>\n
bag   was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of         law, in the<\/p>\n
presence of Jatinder Singh Aulakh,S.P.(H) and Satish Kumar Asthana,<\/p>\n
IPS, as a result whereof 2 kgs. and 100 grams opium, was recovered<\/p>\n
therefrom. A sample of 10 grams was taken out. The sample, and the<\/p>\n
remaining opium in a packet were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and<\/p>\n
taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to<\/p>\n
the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. The<\/p>\n
accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused<\/p>\n
was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.    On her appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied<\/p>\n
upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Act, was framed against her, to which she pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty, and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Surjit Singh, SHO<\/p>\n
Police Station Raman, PW1, who produced the case property as well as<\/p>\n
the accused before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Talwandi Sabo on the<\/p>\n
next day and also sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner,<\/p>\n
Patiala,Constable Bikkar Singh,PW2, who tendered his affidavit Ex.,PE<\/p>\n
ASI Chhota Ram, PW3, the Investigating Officer of the case,and Jatinder<\/p>\n
Sngh Aulakh, at that time Superintendent of Police (Headquarter) PW4, a<\/p>\n
witness to the recovery. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for<\/p>\n
the State, closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was<\/p>\n
recorded, and she was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against her, in the prosecution evidence. She pleaded false implication. It<\/p>\n
was stated by her, that on 13.5.1996, she accompanied by Parveen Kaur,<\/p>\n
her husband’s brother’s daughter was coming from Hanumangarh by bus<\/p>\n
and when their bus reached at Sangat road crossing some police officials<\/p>\n
stopped the bus. She further stated that thereafter the police started<\/p>\n
checking the same. In the process of checking of the bus, a police official<\/p>\n
tried to misbehave with her, which led to dispute, between her, and some<\/p>\n
police officials   It was further stated by her that     she along with said<\/p>\n
Parveen Kaur was taken to Police Station Sangat. On the next day, her<\/p>\n
husband also reached there and met the SHO,Police Station Sangat, to get<\/p>\n
them released. She further stated that though the police released Parveen<\/p>\n
Kaur, yet it involved her, in this false case. She further stated that, in this<\/p>\n
respect her husband also filed an application through Counsel before the<\/p>\n
Ilaqa Magistrate. She also examined Sukhwant Singh, ASI, DW1,              ASI<\/p>\n
Malkeet Singh DW2, Surjit Singh,DW3 and Parveen Kaur, DW4, in her<\/p>\n
defence. Thereafter she closed her defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n
6.           After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record,<\/p>\n
the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated<\/p>\n
hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order<\/p>\n
of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.    I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone<\/p>\n
through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.<\/p>\n
9.    The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that<\/p>\n
Balkar Singh, independent witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer,
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
at the time of the alleged recovery, yet he was not examined. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that non-examination of Balkar Singh clearly revealed that the<\/p>\n
prosecution withheld the best evidence, in its possession. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that an adverse inference could be drawn that had he been<\/p>\n
examined, he would have not supported the case of the prosecution. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that the examination of Balkar Singh, independent<\/p>\n
witness, in view of the defence, taken up by the accused, that she was<\/p>\n
falsely implicated, on account of the reason, that the police officials<\/p>\n
misbehaved with her during the process of checking of the bus, was<\/p>\n
essential to reveal the truth.       No doubt, the Additional Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
for the State gave up Balkar Singh, independent witness, as won over by<\/p>\n
the accused. However, there is nothing, on the record, as to on the basis<\/p>\n
of which material or data, the Additional Public Prosecutor, came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion, that this witness had been won over by the accused<\/p>\n
and,therefore if examined he would damage the case of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
It is, no doubt, true that the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is<\/p>\n
the master of the case. It is for him to decide, as to which witness, he<\/p>\n
wants to examine and which witness he does not want to examine.<\/p>\n
However, he is required to exercise such a discretion,          in a bona fide<\/p>\n
manner, and not in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Since, in this<\/p>\n
case, the independent witness was given up, as won over by the accused,<\/p>\n
without any material or data, or without any application of the police, it<\/p>\n
could be said that the discretion was exercised by the Additional Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor, for the State, in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The<\/p>\n
evidence of Balkar Singh, independent witness, was very much essential,<\/p>\n
to reveal the truth, especially in view of the defence set up by the accused,<\/p>\n
who is a lady, regarding misbehaviour with her, by the police officials,<\/p>\n
resulting into her false implication. The prosecution, thus, withheld the best<\/p>\n
evidence in its possession. In State of Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh @
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Bania, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1040, a case decided by a Division Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court, an independent witness was joined, but was not examined.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, it was held that the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
became doubtful.      The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.           Non-<\/p>\n
examination of Balkar Singh, independent witness by the prosecution,<\/p>\n
without any valid reason, made its case highly doubtful. The submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct is accepted.<\/p>\n
10.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
link evidence, in this case, was completely missing. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that Surjit Singh, PW1, the then SHO, before whom the case property was<\/p>\n
allegedly produced stated that he did not deposit the same, in the judicial<\/p>\n
Malkhana, for want of space. He further stated that on 24.5.1995 he sent<\/p>\n
the sample parcel to the office of the Chemical Examiner,Patiala, through<\/p>\n
Constable    Bikker   Singh.    This   statement   of   Surjit   Singh,   retired<\/p>\n
Inspector,PW1 is, however, belied by Ex.D2, copy of the entry, in register<\/p>\n
No.19 of the Police Station. It is evident from this document, that the case<\/p>\n
property and the sample parcel were deposited with the MHC in the<\/p>\n
Malkhana. Surjit Singh,PW1, admitted, during the             course of cross-<\/p>\n
examination that the key of the Malkhana remained with               the Head<\/p>\n
Constable. Since as per entry D2, the case property was deposited in the<\/p>\n
Malkhana, and key thereof remained with the Head Constable, it could not<\/p>\n
be said that the case property and the sample parcel remained with the<\/p>\n
SHO,    until the same (sample) was sent to the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner. How the sample parcel was taken out of the Malkhana, by him,<\/p>\n
is not known. There is no evidence, on the record, as to who handed over<\/p>\n
the sample parcel to him for further sending the same to the office of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner. Had the case property and the sample parcel<\/p>\n
remained with him, and had he not deposited the same, in the Malkhana,
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
the matter would have been different. Under these circumstances, the link<\/p>\n
evidence was incomplete, in this case. It is incumbent upon the prosecution<\/p>\n
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no possibility of<\/p>\n
tampering with the sample parcel, at any point of time, until it reached the<\/p>\n
office of the Chemical Examiner. If the prosecution fails to do so, then the<\/p>\n
link evidence becames incomplete. In State of Rajasthan V. Daulat Ram<\/a><\/p>\n
1980 SCC (Crl.) 683, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt, all the links starting from seizure. It was held that the possibility of<\/p>\n
sample parcel being changed or tampered with, during the period it<\/p>\n
changed several hands till its reaching the Public Analyst, could not be<\/p>\n
ruled out. The prosecution thus, miserably failed to prove the completion of<\/p>\n
link evidence in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
11.          The next limb of argument of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
regarding the non-completion of link evidence was to the effect, that though<\/p>\n
the alleged recovery was effected, on 15.5.1995, yet the sample parcel<\/p>\n
was sent to the Chemical Examiner on 24.5.1995. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that delay of 9 days in sending the sample was not explained, and, as<\/p>\n
such, the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for he appellant, in this regard , appears to<\/p>\n
be correct. It is, no doubt, true that mere delay in sending the sample<\/p>\n
parcel to the office of the Chemical Examiner, in itself, is not sufficient to<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that the sample parcel was tampered with, at any<\/p>\n
point of time. In such a situation, the Court is required to fall back, on the<\/p>\n
other evidence, produced by the prosecution. If after perusal of the other<\/p>\n
evidence, the Court comes to the          conclusion,   that there was      no<\/p>\n
possibility of tampering with the sample parcel, until it reached the office of<\/p>\n
the Chemical Examiner, then the same can be believed. In the instant<\/p>\n
case, as stated above, the prosecution        miserably failed to prove the<\/p>\n
completion of link evidence. The other evidence produced by the
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution, therefore, could be said to be not      only deficient but also<\/p>\n
unreliable. In this background, the Court is to see, as to whether, the<\/p>\n
possibility of tampering with the sample parcel until it reached the office of<\/p>\n
the Chemical Examiner could be        ruled out, or not. In Gian Singh Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 611, there was a delay of 14<\/p>\n
days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under<\/p>\n
these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the<\/p>\n
sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted, in that case.          In State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme<\/p>\n
Court), the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 15 days.             The<\/p>\n
Malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the<\/p>\n
Malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted.          In<\/p>\n
Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, the<\/p>\n
sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours, the<\/p>\n
seal remained with the police official, and had not been handed over to any<\/p>\n
independent witness. Under these circumstances, it was held that this<\/p>\n
circumstance would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt,<\/p>\n
the prosecution could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none<\/p>\n
tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner. The other evidence produced by the prosecution, in this case,<\/p>\n
to prove the link evidence, as held above, is not only deficient, but also<\/p>\n
unreliable. In these circumstances, the principle of law, laid down, in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
The delay of 9 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner, and non-strict proof, by the prosecution, that the same was not<\/p>\n
tampered with, till it was deposited in that office, must prove fatal to the<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same,
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in<\/p>\n
this regard, being correct, is accepted.\n<\/p>\n
12.          The next limb of argument of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
regarding the non-completion of link evidence, was to the effect, that no<\/p>\n
specimen impression of the seal, was deposited, in the Malkhana, and, as<\/p>\n
such, the question of handing over the same to Bikker Singh, Constable,<\/p>\n
did not arise. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this<\/p>\n
regard appears to be correct. Ex.D2, copy of the entry of Malkhana register<\/p>\n
does not show that the sample impression of the seal, was deposited<\/p>\n
therein. Since the documentary evidence belies the deposit of the sample<\/p>\n
impression of the seal, where from it was handed over to Constable Bikker<\/p>\n
Singh, for deposit thereof, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, along<\/p>\n
with the sample parcel is not known. It,therefore, can be said that the<\/p>\n
sample impression of the seal was never deposited with the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner. In these circumstances, the Chemical Examiner was deprived<\/p>\n
of ascertaining as to whether the seals affixed on the sample parcel, at the<\/p>\n
time of alleged recovery, tallied with the specimen impression of the seals.<\/p>\n
The other evidence produced by the prosecution to prove its link evidence<\/p>\n
has already been held to be deficient and unreliable. In State of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan’s case (supra), the sample impression of the seal was not sent<\/p>\n
to the Laboratory for the comparison of the seals, on the sample. It was<\/p>\n
held that, therefore, there was no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the<\/p>\n
seals found were, in fact the same, as were affixed on the sample parcel<\/p>\n
immediately after seizure of the contraband. The principle of law laid down<\/p>\n
in State of Rajasthan’s case (supra) if fully applicable to the facts of the<\/p>\n
instant case. On account of this reason, the case of the prosecution also<\/p>\n
became doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
13.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
defence version set up by the accused, was more probable, than the
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution version, but the trial Court failed to take into consideration the<\/p>\n
same, as a result whereof it fell into a grave error, in recording conviction,<\/p>\n
and awarding sentence to the accused. The submission of the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, appears to be correct. A specific stand was taken up by the<\/p>\n
accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that, in the bus, in<\/p>\n
which she along with Parveen Kaur, her husbnd’s brother’s daughter was<\/p>\n
travelling on 13.5.1996, during the process of checking thereof, by the<\/p>\n
police officials of Police Station Sangat, they misbehaved with her, as a<\/p>\n
result whereof, a dispute arose. She further stated that she along with<\/p>\n
Parveen Kaur was taken to the Police Station and when her husband came<\/p>\n
to know of all this, he went to the Police Station, for the purpose of their<\/p>\n
release. She was not released but Parveen Kaur was released and,<\/p>\n
ultimately, on 15.5.1995, this false case was registered against her. This<\/p>\n
version of the accused was duly supported by Parveen Kaur,DW4, in all<\/p>\n
material particulars and Surjit Singh, DW3, at the relevant time a Clerk with<\/p>\n
Shri K.S.Bhullar,Advocate,District Court, Bathinda. Normally, a lady, in the<\/p>\n
Indian society would not come up with such an allegation. However, when<\/p>\n
she is compelled by the circumstances, then she can muster courage to<\/p>\n
bring to the notice of the entire world, that a particular person misbehaved<\/p>\n
with her. Had the police officials not misbehaved with the accused, she<\/p>\n
would have been the last lady to make such an allegation against them.<\/p>\n
The witness, in whose presence, the police officials misbehaved with the<\/p>\n
accused, supported her version, while appearing as DW4. Not only this,<\/p>\n
even an application was given by Mr. K.S.Bhullar,Advocate on 15.5.1995<\/p>\n
at 11.45 am against the police of Police Station Sangat.Ex.D4 is the copy<\/p>\n
of that application. In this application it was stated that when Balbir Kaur<\/p>\n
and Parveen Kaur were travelling in a bus on 13.5.1996, the police of<\/p>\n
Police Station Sangat conducted search thereof. It was further stated that<\/p>\n
during the course of search it used filthy language against Balbir Kaur and
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
Parveen and on their intervention, the police      felt annoyed with them.<\/p>\n
Thereafter they took them into custody forcibly. The instant       case was<\/p>\n
registered against the accused at about 3.15 pm on 15.5.1995. Ruqa was<\/p>\n
sent at 2.30 pm. It means that the alleged recovery was shown against the<\/p>\n
accused, after moving of application dated 15.5.1995 at 11.45 am by Mr.<\/p>\n
K.S.Bhullar, Advocate, detailing therein the misbehaviour of the police<\/p>\n
officials of Police Station Sangat with her (accused). Mr. K.S.Bhullar could<\/p>\n
not make such an application, before the registration of the case, had<\/p>\n
actual incident, as detailed therein, not taken place. The defence version<\/p>\n
duly corroborated by the defence evidence, produced by the accused, was<\/p>\n
more probable, than the prosecution story. The accused is not required to<\/p>\n
prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt. She was only required            to<\/p>\n
probalise her defence. As stated above, defence evidence in this case was<\/p>\n
more probable than the prosecution version. The trial Court was required to<\/p>\n
act upon the same. It had failed to do so wrongly. Once the defence<\/p>\n
version is   held to be more probable than the prosecution version, the<\/p>\n
accused is entitled to acquittal. The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct and stands accepted.<\/p>\n
14.          In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Court below, are not<\/p>\n
based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The<\/p>\n
trial Court did not take into consideration, the infirmities and lacunae,<\/p>\n
enumerated, in the aforesaid paragraphs.         Had these infirmities and<\/p>\n
lacunae, been taken into consideration, by the trial Court, the result would<\/p>\n
have been different.      The judgment of conviction, and the order of<\/p>\n
sentence, warrant interference, and are liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
15.   For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.8.2000, are set<\/p>\n
aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against
\n Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000                                           11<\/span><\/p>\n
her. If, she is on bail, she shall stand discharged of her bail bonds. If, she<\/p>\n
is in custody, she shall be set at liberty at once, if not required in any other<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 19, 2008                           (SHAM SUNDER)\nsks                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008 Criminal Appeal No. 826-SB of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.826-SB of 2000 Date of decision: September 19 , 2008 Balbir Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh son of Harchand […]<\/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-183455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 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\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-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=\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T23:05:43+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T23:05:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3326,\"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\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T23:05:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 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":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 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\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T23:05:43+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T23:05:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008"},"wordCount":3326,"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\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008","name":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T23:05:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-kaur-wife-of-paramjit-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-19-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balbir Kaur Wife Of Paramjit Singh … vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 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\/183455","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=183455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}