{"id":186290,"date":"2009-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-15T04:55:37","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T23:25:37","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009<\/div>\n
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                              Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008\n                                        DATE OF DECISION : 14.01.2009\n\nState of Haryana\n                                                            .... APPELLANT\n\n                                  Versus\n\nPartap\n                                                        ..... RESPONDENT\n\nCORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n            HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. Partap Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Ms. Amita Arora, Advocate, Amicus curiae,\n            for the accused-respondent.\n\n                        ***\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the judgment<\/p>\n
of acquittal of the sole accused Partap, passed by the Court of Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad, on 22.5.2007 in Sessions Case No. 57 of<\/p>\n
2006, arising from FIR No. 194 dated 27.8.2006, registered at Police Station<\/p>\n
Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, under Section 304-B of the IPC.<\/p>\n
            In brief, the aforesaid FIR (Ex.PA\/1) was registered on the<\/p>\n
complaint made by Jagdish Parsad, uncle of Archana (deceased), on<\/p>\n
27.8.2006, on the allegation that marriage of his niece Archana was<\/p>\n
solemnized in the year 2003 with Partap (accused-respondent) resident of<\/p>\n
Village Mayore, PS Vilgram, District Hardoi (U.P.). In the marriage, the
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
dowry was given by his brother Bachey Lal (father of Archana), according<\/p>\n
to his status. However, accused Partap insisted again and again for bringing<\/p>\n
more dowry. He used to give beatings to Archana. Due to that reason,<\/p>\n
Archana used to remain upset. After some time, the accused brought<\/p>\n
Archana from his village Mayore to Faridabad, where also he demanded<\/p>\n
dowry and gave beatings to her. On 26.8.2006, at about 10.00 P.M., he got<\/p>\n
the information that Archana has died. On receiving that information, he<\/p>\n
came to the house of Partap, where he found that Archana was lying on the<\/p>\n
floor with bluish marks on her neck. Near the dead body, broken bangles<\/p>\n
were also lying. It appeared to him that Archana has died due to<\/p>\n
strangulation and he doubted that accused Partap has committed this crime.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid complaint was made to the police at 2.50 A.M. (night) on<\/p>\n
27.8.2006, on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was registered at 3.20<\/p>\n
A.M. on the same day. Subsequently, the inquest report (Ex.PC) was<\/p>\n
prepared and the dead body was taken to the Hospital for post mortem. The<\/p>\n
post mortem of the deceased was conducted by a Board of three Doctors.<\/p>\n
They found ligature marks high in the neck going backwards and upwards<\/p>\n
missing behind right pinna. On left side, it was backwards and upwards and<\/p>\n
disappearing in hair line. There was no subcutaneous       haemorrhage or<\/p>\n
fracture of hyoid bone. No external mark of injury was seen. In the opinion<\/p>\n
of the Board of Doctors, the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of<\/p>\n
hanging, which was antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in<\/p>\n
the ordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
            After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan.<\/p>\n
The charge under Section 304-B IPC was framed against the accused to<\/p>\n
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
            In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses,<\/p>\n
including PW.9 Jagdish (uncle of the deceased), PW.10 Bachey Lal (father<\/p>\n
of the deceased) and PW.11 SI Sudeep Singh (the Investigating Officer) and<\/p>\n
also led other documentary evidence. The accused in his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and stated that he was<\/p>\n
falsely implicated in the case, though he was innocent. He did not lead any<\/p>\n
evidence in his defence.\n<\/p>\n
            The trial court, after considering and appreciating the evidence<\/p>\n
led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused, while coming to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Partap being<\/p>\n
husband of deceased Archana harassed her on account of demand of dowry<\/p>\n
and on that account, she committed suicide on 26.8.2006, within 7 years of<\/p>\n
her marriage, and that soon before her death, she was subjected to any<\/p>\n
cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
            Shri Partap Singh, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Haryana, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that the trial<\/p>\n
court has wrongly acquitted the accused while recording wrong findings,<\/p>\n
which are totally contrary to the evidence led by the prosecution. In this<\/p>\n
regard, he submitted that the trial court has recorded a finding that death of<\/p>\n
the wife occurred after 7 years of the marriage, therefore, the offence under
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 304-B IPC has not been made out. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel, the said finding is contrary to the statements of PW.9 Jagdish and<\/p>\n
PW.10 Bachey Lal, father of the deceased, who have categorically stated<\/p>\n
that the marriage of deceased Archana was solemnized with the accused in<\/p>\n
the year 2003. Learned counsel submitted that in cross-examination of these<\/p>\n
two prosecution witnesses, even it was not suggested that marriage of the<\/p>\n
deceased had taken place prior to the year 2003. While totally ignoring the<\/p>\n
statements of these two witnesses, the trial court, while relying upon a<\/p>\n
casual observation by PW.11, SI Sudeep Singh, the Investigating Officer,<\/p>\n
where he stated that marriage of the deceased with the accused was<\/p>\n
solemnized in U.P. 7-9 years ago, again said 5-6 years ago, has recorded a<\/p>\n
perverse finding that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the<\/p>\n
accused more than 7 years prior to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
further submitted that a wrong finding has also been recorded by the trial<\/p>\n
court that both Archana and the accused were residing separately. He has<\/p>\n
recorded the said finding while observing that PW.9 Jagdish has stated so,<\/p>\n
whereas no such statement was made by this witness, either in his<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief or in his cross-examination. Thirdly, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant-State submitted that while ignoring the statements of PW.9<\/p>\n
Jagdish and PW.10 Bachey Lal, a wrong finding has also been recorded by<\/p>\n
the trial court to the effect that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon<\/p>\n
before the death of Archana, she was subjected to any harassment by the<\/p>\n
accused in connection with any demand of dowry. In the alternative, learned
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant-State submitted that if there is lack of sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence with regard to harassment by the accused to the deceased soon<\/p>\n
before her death in connection with demand of dowry, there is sufficient and<\/p>\n
positive evidence available on the record (i.e. statements of PW.9 Jagdish<\/p>\n
and PW.10 Bachey Lal), which clearly establish that within 7 years of her<\/p>\n
marriage, Archana was subjected to cruelty by her husband-accused.<\/p>\n
Therefore, under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, it is presumed<\/p>\n
that the suicide committed by the deceased had been abetted by the accused.<\/p>\n
Thus, the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that the aforesaid two witnesses have categorically stated<\/p>\n
that the deceased was being harassed by the accused after consuming liquor.<\/p>\n
After consuming liquor, he used to give beatings to her and also demand<\/p>\n
money from her for consuming liquor. These allegations clearly fall under<\/p>\n
the definition of `cruelty’ as defined in Explanation to Section 498-A IPC.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel further submitted that though the charge under Section 306<\/p>\n
IPC has not been framed against the accused, but while recording the<\/p>\n
statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the aforesaid allegations<\/p>\n
and the evidence, which duly constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC,<\/p>\n
were duly put to the accused. Therefore, sufficient opportunity of defence<\/p>\n
was granted to the accused with regard to the offence under Section 306<\/p>\n
IPC. Even otherwise, the offence under Section 306 IPC is lesser to the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 304-B IPC, for which the charge has been framed<\/p>\n
against the accused. Therefore, without remanding the matter for grant of
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
opportunity of defence to the accused, he can be convicted for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 306 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, Smt. Amita Arora, Advocate, amicus curiae,<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, submitted that keeping in<\/p>\n
view the evidence available on the record, the trial court has rightly<\/p>\n
acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. She<\/p>\n
submitted that one of the material ingredients of the offence under Section<\/p>\n
304-B IPC i.e. soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or<\/p>\n
harassment by her husband or his relative in connection with demand of<\/p>\n
dowry has not been established at all. PW.9 Jagdish and PW.10 Bachey Lal<\/p>\n
have not at all stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the<\/p>\n
accused soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. She<\/p>\n
submitted that if the finding of the trial court that the marriage of the<\/p>\n
deceased was solemnized with the accused 7 years prior to the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence is taken as contrary to the evidence, even then the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 304-B IPC is not made out against the accused. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
further submitted that as far as offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned,<\/p>\n
there is no reliable and trust worthy evidence to prove that the deceased was<\/p>\n
subjected to cruelty, which abetted her to commit suicide. The allegation<\/p>\n
levelled by PW.9 and PW.10 that the accused used to consume liquor and<\/p>\n
give beatings to the deceased and demand money from her for consuming<\/p>\n
liquor, as stated by them while appearing in the Court, is totally an<\/p>\n
improvement, as these witnesses did not state these facts before the police
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel, while further referring to the<\/p>\n
statements of these two witnesses and pointing out the contradictions in<\/p>\n
their statements before the police and in the court, submitted that they are<\/p>\n
not reliable witnesses at all and on the basis of their statements regarding<\/p>\n
the aforesaid allegations, no presumption as to abatement of suicide by a<\/p>\n
married woman within 7 years of the marriage under Section 113-A of the<\/p>\n
Indian Evidence Act can be raised. Therefore, the accused is also not liable<\/p>\n
to be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the<\/p>\n
parties and have perused the impugned judgment as well as the trial court<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
            From the medical evidence, available on the record, i.e. Post<\/p>\n
Mortem Report (Ex.PB) and statement of PW.2 Dr. A.K. Lohan, it has been<\/p>\n
clearly established that the deceased has died an un-natural death by<\/p>\n
committing suicide. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that marriage of<\/p>\n
the deceased was solemnized with the accused in the year 2003 i.e. within 7<\/p>\n
years of her death. However, a contrary finding has been recorded by the<\/p>\n
trial court to the effect that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with<\/p>\n
the accused more than 7 years prior to the alleged occurrence. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, this finding is totally perverse and against the evidence on the<\/p>\n
record. From the very beginning, PWs Jagdish and Bachey Lal, uncle and<\/p>\n
father of the deceased, have categorically stated that marriage of Archana<\/p>\n
was solemnized with the accused in the year 2003. In the Court, while
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
appearing as PW.9 and PW.10, again they categorically stated the same fact.<\/p>\n
Even no suggestion was put to them by the defence counsel that marriage of<\/p>\n
the accused with Archana was not solemnized within 7 years of the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence. In our opinion, this fact was not controverted at all by the<\/p>\n
defence. The trial court, while relying upon an observation made by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer in his statement as PW.11 before the Court that<\/p>\n
marriage of the deceased with the accused was solemnized in U.P. 7-9 years<\/p>\n
ago, again said 5-6 years ago, has wrongly recorded a finding that marriage<\/p>\n
was solemnized more than 7 years prior to the alleged occurrence. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, this finding cannot be sustained. The prosecution has established<\/p>\n
that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the accused in the year<\/p>\n
2003 i.e. within 7 years of the alleged occurrence. The trial court has also<\/p>\n
recorded a perverse finding to the effect that both the accused as well as the<\/p>\n
deceased were residing separately. It has been observed that in his<\/p>\n
statement, PW.9 Jagdish has so stated. A perusal of the said statement<\/p>\n
reveals that the aforesaid witness has not stated so at all. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused-respondent could not controvert this factual position. In<\/p>\n
view of this, the said finding of the trial court is also not sustainable.<\/p>\n
             Further, the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to<\/p>\n
the alleged harassment caused by the husband to the deceased wife in<\/p>\n
connection with demand of dowry soon before her death, in our opinion, is<\/p>\n
in confirmity with the evidence available on the record. A perusal of the<\/p>\n
statements of PW.9 Jagdish and PW.10 Bachey Lal shows that these
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
witnesses have stated nothing that soon before the alleged occurrence, the<\/p>\n
accused harassed the deceased on account of demand of dowry. Both these<\/p>\n
witnesses have stated that the deceased was harassed by the accused after<\/p>\n
consuming liquor. He used to beat her and demand money from her for<\/p>\n
consuming liquor. Therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in<\/p>\n
connection with demand of dowry. It is well settled that in case, the<\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to prove this fact, then no offence under Section 304-<\/p>\n
B IPC can be said to have been made out. In this regard, reference can be<\/p>\n
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar versus State<\/p>\n
of Haryana, 1998 (3) SCC 309. Thus, the acquittal of the accused by the<\/p>\n
trial court for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is to be upheld.<\/p>\n
            Now, the question which arises for consideration is as to<\/p>\n
whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused is liable to<\/p>\n
be convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Undisputedly,no charge<\/p>\n
under Section 306 IPC was framed in this case. However, it is well settled<\/p>\n
that the accused can still be convicted for the offence actually committed by<\/p>\n
him, if the said offence is proved on the basis of the evidence available on<\/p>\n
record. The only precaution to be taken is that the accused has not been<\/p>\n
misled by non-framing of the charge for that particular offence. But, if the<\/p>\n
incriminating evidence which led to the commission of the said offence has<\/p>\n
been put to the accused at the time of recording of his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C., then it is to be taken that the accused was not mis-led
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                          -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
by non-framing of the said charge. In this regard, reference can be made to a<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla<\/p>\n
Srinivasa Rao,<\/a> (2003) 1 SCC 217, wherein while acquitting the accused<\/p>\n
under Section 304-B IPC, he was convicted for the lesser offence under<\/p>\n
Section 498-A and 306 IPC, at the appellate stage.\n<\/p>\n
            Now, it is to be considered as to whether there is sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence available on the record, on the basis of which the accused can be<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 306 IPC. PW.9 Jagdish and PW.10 Bachey Lal, in<\/p>\n
their statements before the Court, have categorically stated that after the<\/p>\n
marriage, the accused harassed the deceased after consuming liquor and by<\/p>\n
giving beating to her. He also used to demand money from her for<\/p>\n
consuming liquor. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted<\/p>\n
that this portion of the statement of these witnesses cannot be relied upon,<\/p>\n
as these two witnesses did not state these facts before the police while<\/p>\n
making complaint and recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that this version of the prosecution is after-<\/p>\n
thought and cannot be relied upon. It is true that these facts do not find<\/p>\n
mention in the complaint made by PW.9 Jagdish as well as the statement<\/p>\n
(Ex.DA) made by PW.10 Bachey Lal before the police, but these witnesses,<\/p>\n
while appearing before the Court, have stated that the police had not<\/p>\n
correctly recorded their statements. Actually, the deceased was being<\/p>\n
harassed by the accused. In our opinion, the statements of these two<\/p>\n
witnesses on this point cannot be discarded, because they are consistent in
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                          -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
their examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination that the deceased<\/p>\n
was being harassed and given beating by the accused by consuming liquor<\/p>\n
and he also used to demand money from her for consuming liquor. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, the aforesaid statements are sufficient to raise presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that when the<\/p>\n
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted<\/p>\n
by her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a<\/p>\n
period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband<\/p>\n
had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the<\/p>\n
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her<\/p>\n
husband. It has been established on record that the deceased had committed<\/p>\n
suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and she<\/p>\n
was subjected to cruelty by her husband during the said period. The<\/p>\n
Explanation to Section further provided that for the purpose of this section,<\/p>\n
“cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code. Explanation to Section 498-A of the Code provides as under :<\/p>\n
            Explanation :- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
\n            likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
\n            injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
\n            physical) of the woman; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
\n            with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
\n            any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
\n            on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                           -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
            meet such demand.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In our opinion, if the husband used to harass the wife after consuming liquor<\/p>\n
and give beating to her and demand money from her for consuming liquor,<\/p>\n
the said conduct falls under the definition of `cruelty’ as defined above. In<\/p>\n
this regard, reference can be made to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n
High Court in P. Bikshapathi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989<\/p>\n
Criminal Law Journal 1186. In this case, there is sufficient evidence<\/p>\n
available on the record, which establish that within the seven years of her<\/p>\n
marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The<\/p>\n
probability of existence of nexus between the cruelty and the suicide can not<\/p>\n
be ruled out. In our opinion, the alleged cruelty was such of the nature as<\/p>\n
was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Therefore, keeping in<\/p>\n
view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the presumption can safely be raised against the accused under Section 113-<\/p>\n
A of the Indian Evidence Act. In the instant case, neither there is any<\/p>\n
evidence led by the accused nor any material available on the record, which<\/p>\n
rebut the said presumption. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the<\/p>\n
accused has only stated that the allegations of consuming liquor, giving<\/p>\n
beating to his wife and demanding money from her for liquor, were<\/p>\n
incorrect. Except that denial, there is no evidence available on the record,<\/p>\n
which rebut the aforesaid presumption. In our opinion, once the cruelty is<\/p>\n
proved, there is a presumption of continuity, unless contrary is proved.<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, the accused-respondent is convicted
\n Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008                                         -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 306 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
            After taking into consideration the various factors, i.e. age of<\/p>\n
the deceased, period of her marriage with the accused-respondent, the fact<\/p>\n
that she committed suicide in the matrimonial house, we sentence the<\/p>\n
accused-respondent Partap to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
5 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.<\/p>\n
            The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The accused-respondent<\/p>\n
Partap, who is on bail, shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of<\/p>\n
his sentence.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                           ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )\n                                                    JUDGE\n\n\n\nJanuary 14, 2009                                ( DAYA CHAUDHARY)\nndj                                                  JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. A. No. 267-DBA of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 14.01.2009 State of Haryana …. APPELLANT Versus Partap ….. RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY […]<\/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-186290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T23:25:37+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\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T23:25:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3327,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T23:25:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T23:25:37+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\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T23:25:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009"},"wordCount":3327,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009","name":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T23:25:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-partap-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Partap on 14 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186290","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=186290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186290\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}