{"id":184518,"date":"2008-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-29T21:37:08","modified_gmt":"2016-11-29T16:07:08","slug":"sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                        -1-\n\n                                    ****\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                        Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003\n                        Date of decision : 11.8.2008\n\nSunil alias Sonu                              .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nState of Haryana                              ...Respondent\n\n                             ****\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND\n\nPresent: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.\n\n             Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General,Haryana\n\n\nS. D. ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
for the offences under Sections 366\/376\/506 IPC. The learned Trial<\/p>\n
court, however, exonerated the appellant of a charge under Section<\/p>\n
363 IPC by recording a finding that “in this light of the above-<\/p>\n
discussion, it has to be held that the prosecution has not been able<\/p>\n
to bring sufficient positive evidence on the file to prove that the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence in<\/p>\n
question.”\n<\/p>\n
2.           The prosecution allegations were as under:-<\/p>\n
3.           The prosecutrix is an unmarried daughter of a working<\/p>\n
couple.      The first informant\/complainant (PW-7) father of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix was a Railway employee and posted at Calcutta at the
\n Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                     -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
relevant   point of time; while mother of the prosecutrix was in<\/p>\n
employment in a Delhi Corporation. The couple had six children i.e.<\/p>\n
two sons and four daughters.       Two daughters and one son were<\/p>\n
married; while others including the prosecutrix were unmarried and<\/p>\n
used to stay at home. The first informant had come on home on<\/p>\n
leave. On 18.11.2000 at about 5.00 P.M., he went out of the house<\/p>\n
to see his working wife off.     When he came home, he found the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix    missing   from the house. He further found that the<\/p>\n
appellant, who was residing in the same locality, was also missing<\/p>\n
from his house. He entertained an apprehension that the appellant<\/p>\n
had kidnapped his daughter. He further found that his daughter i.e.<\/p>\n
prosecutrix had taken along cash amount of Rs.1250\/- and indicated<\/p>\n
gold ornaments (one necklace, two rings, one Tikka) and some silver<\/p>\n
jewellary articles while leaving the house. The prosecutrix and the<\/p>\n
appellant were apprehended by a police party on 18.12.2000, on the<\/p>\n
basis of a secret information.\n<\/p>\n
4.            PW-1 Dr. Manju Lata had medico legally examined the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix on 18.12.2000.       She found that there were no injury<\/p>\n
marks all over her body and her clothes were not torn from<\/p>\n
anywhere. She further found that her hymen was ruptured and she<\/p>\n
did not complain of pain during per-vaginal examination.      No injury<\/p>\n
was noticed on thigh, perineum, vulva, vagina and cervix.         After<\/p>\n
perusing the FSL report Ex. PC, Dr. Manju Lata opined that “sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse with Pooja cannot be ruled out.” For determination of her<\/p>\n
age, she recommended ossification test by an expert.
\n Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
5.         PW-2 Dr. D.S.Rana had medico legally examined the<\/p>\n
appellant on 18.12.2000. He opined that the appellant was capable<\/p>\n
of performing sexual intercourse.\n<\/p>\n
6.         PW-13      Dr. Jai Kishore      conducted the radiological<\/p>\n
examination of the prosecutrix on 14.3.2001 and opined that “the<\/p>\n
age of pooja daughter of Om Parkash appears to be 17 to 19 years<\/p>\n
with an error of six months on either side.”\n<\/p>\n
7.         PW-3 HC Ram Bhagat, PW-5 Constable Jai Chand<\/p>\n
and PW-9 Constable Rajesh Kumar tendered their affidavits Ex. PF,<\/p>\n
Ex. PH and Ex. PK respectively into evidence.\n<\/p>\n
8.         PW-4 SI Chhattar Singh had recorded formal          FIR Ex.<\/p>\n
PG\/1 on receipt of statement Ex.PG of Om Parkash (PW-6) bearing<\/p>\n
endorsement of ASI Chandergupt. He also handed over the special<\/p>\n
report to Constable Om Parkash (PW-6) for being delivered to Illaqa<\/p>\n
Magistrate and also Superintendent of Police and D.S.P., Jhajjar.<\/p>\n
9.         PW-78 Om Parkash is the father of the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
10.        PW-8 Pooja is the prosecutrix herself.\n<\/p>\n
11.        PW-10      Inspector Ram Chander had filed the report<\/p>\n
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in this case.\n<\/p>\n
12.        PW-11 is C.B. Sheoran, the then Sub Divisional Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, had recorded the statement (Ex. PJ) under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
13.        PW-12 ASI Chandergupt had investigated this case.<\/p>\n
14.        Appellant raised a pure and simple plea of innocence.<\/p>\n
15.        No evidence was adduced in defence.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ****<\/p>\n
16.        It would be apparent from a perusal of the record that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to prove that the prosecutrix was<\/p>\n
below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence.<\/p>\n
However, learned Trial Judge negatived the appellant’s plea (raised<\/p>\n
in the course of cross-examination of PWs)             that it was all<\/p>\n
consensual affairs.    Learned Trial Judge also declined to place<\/p>\n
reliance upon the photographs, affidavit Ex. D1 and love letters Ex.<\/p>\n
D2 to Ex. D8 by recording a finding that those (Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 to<\/p>\n
Ex.D8) had been executed\/written by the prosecutrix under threat<\/p>\n
and pressure. It was observed in that context that prosecutrix had no<\/p>\n
occasion to make an averment in affidavit Ex. D1 that her parents<\/p>\n
were poor and not in a position to get her married by providing her<\/p>\n
dowry. In recording that finding, sustenance was drawn from the fact<\/p>\n
that first informant had made a categorical deposition at the trial that<\/p>\n
his two daughters and one son were married.\n<\/p>\n
17.        I do not find myself in agreement with the line of<\/p>\n
reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge.<\/p>\n
18.        Letters Ex. D2 to Ex. D8 are clearly indicative of extreme<\/p>\n
love which the prosecutrix had in her mind for the appellant. These<\/p>\n
letters were presented     before the police by the appellant.      The<\/p>\n
affidavit (Ex. D1) had been attested by a Notary Public.         It is in<\/p>\n
evidence that the prosecutrix had been to the Court i.e. the seat of<\/p>\n
Notary Public where this affidavit was attested. The mere fact that<\/p>\n
the deponent of Ex. D1 (prosecutrix) made a factually incorrect<\/p>\n
averment in the course of affidavit Ex.D1 would not prove that she
\n Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                       -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ****<\/p>\n
had not sworn that affidavit. By and large, people of the present<\/p>\n
generation are intelligent. They do exhibit ingenunity in coining facts<\/p>\n
which, they feel, would justify the step they have taken in the context.<\/p>\n
The view obtained by the learned Trial Judge in the context is not<\/p>\n
appropriate and is negatived. There is plethora of evidence on the<\/p>\n
file to prove that the prosecutrix had been to a number of towns in<\/p>\n
the company of the appellant. She is proved to have visited the<\/p>\n
Courts for the purpose of attestation of affidavit Ex. D1. She never<\/p>\n
ever made a grievance of the fact that she was being detained by the<\/p>\n
appellant under threat or pressure. Interestingly enough, she denied<\/p>\n
having appeared before the Notary Public but she is in the know of<\/p>\n
the fact that the stamp paper had been purchased by an Advocate<\/p>\n
(at Tikamgarh) who had been engaged by the appellant “for the<\/p>\n
purpose”. She also knows that the affidavit had been typed by a<\/p>\n
typist “in a Kiosk on the dictation of the lawyer engaged by Sunil.” It<\/p>\n
was, thus, a pure and simple case where the entire episode was a<\/p>\n
consensual affair. Once the prosecutrix has not been proved to be a<\/p>\n
minor and no appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal<\/p>\n
of the appellant for the offence under Section 363 IPC, there is no<\/p>\n
way the appellant could have been convicted for the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 366\/376\/506 IPC, particularly when it has been found that<\/p>\n
she was a consenting party to the whole affair. In that context, it may<\/p>\n
be noticed that it is in the First Information Report itself, which had<\/p>\n
been lodged by none else or other than the own father of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, that she had taken along a number of jewellary articles
\n Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                        -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
and indicated cash amount while eloping with the appellant.<\/p>\n
19.         Insofar as the statement made by the prosecutrix under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it does not have the probative<\/p>\n
value adequate enough to outweigh the substantive evidence ( in<\/p>\n
affidavit Ex. D1 and love letters Ex. D2 to Ex. D8) to the effect that it<\/p>\n
was all a consensual affair between two adult individuals. The law<\/p>\n
may not be able to validate it as a recognised alliance but it cannot<\/p>\n
punish the male partner either as the female participant was a major<\/p>\n
girl and a willing partner in the entire episode.<\/p>\n
20.         The following facts can safely be culled out from the<\/p>\n
material obtaining on the file:-\n<\/p>\n
      (1)   The prosecution has not been able to prove that the<\/p>\n
            prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years.<\/p>\n
      (2)   The prosecutrix had taken along cash amount and gold<\/p>\n
            and silver jewellery articles which eloping.<\/p>\n
      (3)   She had addressed love letters Ex.D2 to Ex.D8 which<\/p>\n
            indicate the love\/deep infatuation she had in her<\/p>\n
            heart\/mind for the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4)   She travelled through and to various towers in the<\/p>\n
            company of the appellant but did not make a grievance of<\/p>\n
            any act on the part of the latter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5)   She swore affidavit Ex.P1 before a Notary Public in the<\/p>\n
            Courts premises but did not complain of being under<\/p>\n
            threat at the hands of the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.         In the light of the foregoing discussion and facts noticed
\n Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003                  -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                ****<\/p>\n
above, the impugned finding of conviction is found to be<\/p>\n
unsustainable.    The appeal shall stand allowed.   The impugned<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction is set aside.   The appellant shall stand<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
August     11, 2008                          (S. D. ANAND)\nPka                                              JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1194-SB- of 2003 Date of decision : 11.8.2008 Sunil alias Sonu …..Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. […]<\/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-184518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 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\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-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=\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-29T16:07:08+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-29T16:07:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1516,\"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\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-29T16:07:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 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":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 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\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-29T16:07:08+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-29T16:07:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008"},"wordCount":1516,"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\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008","name":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-29T16:07:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunil-alias-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunil Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 11 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\/184518","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=184518"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184518\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}