{"id":203433,"date":"2009-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-20T02:02:36","modified_gmt":"2018-07-19T20:32:36","slug":"state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 January, 2009<\/div>\n
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                              -1-\n\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\nCHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n             DATE OF DECISION: January 29, 2009\n\n                   Parties Name\n\nState (Union Territory Chandigarh)\n                                     ...APPLICANT.\n\n     VERSUS\nMeena\n                                       ...RESPONDENT\n\n\nCORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\nPRESENT: Mr. Sukant Gupta,\n         Advocate, for the applicant.\n\n\nJASBIR SINGH, J.\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             State (Union Territory Chandigarh) has filed this application<\/p>\n
under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal<\/p>\n
against judgment dated January 20, 2007, acquitting the respondent of the<\/p>\n
charges framed against her. There is a delay of 582 days in filing this<\/p>\n
application. Prayer for condonation of delay has also been made.<\/p>\n
             It was case of the prosecution that the respondent in conspiracy<\/p>\n
with Jaswant Pal son of Ram Dev Pal had committed murder of her husband<\/p>\n
Om Parkash on June 16, 2004. Jagir Dass (PW1) and deceased Om Parkash<\/p>\n
were real brothers and both were in joint business as cable operators.<\/p>\n
Prosecution story as noticed by the trial Court is as under:
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
         “4. On 16.6.2004 at about 5.15 a.m. the complainant Jagir Dass<\/p>\n
         received a telephonic call from accused Meena who told him<\/p>\n
         that Om Parkash, her husband, had not returned home that<\/p>\n
         night. She further stated that some newspaper hawker told her<\/p>\n
         that Om Parkash’s motorcycle No. CH-03M-04422 was lying<\/p>\n
         parked in CRPF ground, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         5. On receipt of the above message, this complainant having<\/p>\n
           taken Suresh Kumar (PW7) along went to CRPF ground.<\/p>\n
           There they found the motorcycle of Om Parkash lying<\/p>\n
           parked. They came to know that Om Parkash had been taken<\/p>\n
           away by P.C.R. (Police Control Room) Gypsy to Govt.<\/p>\n
           Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The<\/p>\n
           complainant then reached the above hospital. There he came<\/p>\n
           to know that doctor had declared Om Parkash as brought<\/p>\n
           dead. He identified the dead body of Om Parkash lying on<\/p>\n
           the stretcher.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6. Prior to that at about 4.45 a.m., A.S.I. Surinder Singh<\/p>\n
           (PW15) received a message from the control room that one<\/p>\n
           male person was lying on the ground near CRPF Camp,<\/p>\n
           Ram, Dabar, Chandigarh. On receipt of that information he<\/p>\n
           having taken Constable Satwant Singh along rushed to the<\/p>\n
           spot. He found the above motorcycle lying there. Besides this<\/p>\n
           one Nokia mobile was lying there. They came to know that<\/p>\n
           Om Parkash who was lying on the ground had been taken to<\/p>\n
           Govt.    Medical   College    and   Hospital,    Sector   32,<\/p>\n
           Chandigarh.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
            ASI Surinder Singh (PW15) went to the Hospital in Sector 32,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh, and moved an application (Ex. PJ) to know cause of death of<\/p>\n
Om Parkash and also for conducting post-mortem examination of the dead<\/p>\n
body. He was intimated that Om Parkash was brought dead and his post-<\/p>\n
mortem examination could not be conducted in that Hospital. The<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer then prepared inquest report of the dead body and sent<\/p>\n
it for post-mortem examination to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.<\/p>\n
Thereafter he reached at the spot, where he met the complainant Jagir Dass,<\/p>\n
who made a statement Ex. PA stating that some unknown persons have<\/p>\n
caused death of his brother Om Parkash. On receipt of intimation from ASI<\/p>\n
Surinder Singh (PW15), FIR Ex. PA\/1 was recorded. In the meantime,<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer removed blood stained earth from the spot, got the<\/p>\n
spot photographed and prepared rough site plan. Post-mortem on the dead<\/p>\n
body was conducted by Dr. G. Verma (PW2) on June 17, 2004. It was a case<\/p>\n
of fire-arm injury. Pellets were removed from the body at the time of<\/p>\n
autopsy. Clue regarding participation of Jaswant Pal in the crime was given<\/p>\n
by Satish Kumar (PW6), who stated that he had seen the above said accused<\/p>\n
coming from the side of Railway track and going towards Ram Darbar on<\/p>\n
June 15, 2004, at 11.50 PM. His shirt was stained with blood. The above<\/p>\n
named accused was produced before the Investigating Officer on June 16,<\/p>\n
2004, by Prem Chand (PW3). The witness further stated that accused<\/p>\n
Jaswant Pal had made confessional statement before him that he was having<\/p>\n
illicit relations with the respondent in this application, which fact had<\/p>\n
become known to Om Parkash. In view of above, both had conspired to kill<\/p>\n
Om Parkash. As planned on June 15, 2004, Jaswant Pal had taken Om
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Parkash to Panchkula on a motorcycle on the pretext of making payment to<\/p>\n
someone. Both of them went to the house of one Charno alias Charanjit<\/p>\n
Kaur (PW17) and then towards CRPF Building. Thereafter at a secluded<\/p>\n
place, he shot dead above said Om Parkash. PW3 has further stated that<\/p>\n
after committing the murder, Jaswant Pal had contacted the respondent in<\/p>\n
this application, on telephone. On disclosure statement made by Jaswant<\/p>\n
Pal, weapon of offence was recovered and thereafter respondent was also<\/p>\n
arrested.\n<\/p>\n
            On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court<\/p>\n
for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The<\/p>\n
prosecution produced 25 witnesses and also brought on record documentary<\/p>\n
evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence,<\/p>\n
statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Incriminating material was put to the accused. They denied the same and<\/p>\n
pleaded false implication. The respondent took a specific stand that she has<\/p>\n
falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of Jagir Dass who wanted<\/p>\n
to grab her husband’s cable operation business. She denied any relationship<\/p>\n
with co-accused Jaswant Pal. She has further stated that her son Himanshu<\/p>\n
was tutored to falsely depose against her. The accused also led evidence in<\/p>\n
defence. The trial Court, on analysis of evidence as led by the parties, came<\/p>\n
to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the<\/p>\n
respondent and accordingly acquitted her. However, co-accused Jaswant Pal<\/p>\n
was convicted and sentenced for commission of an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.<\/p>\n
            After hearing counsel for the applicant, we find that it was a<\/p>\n
case of circumstantial evidence. The trial Court rightly came to the
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to make out a complete chain of<\/p>\n
circumstances, which may indicate towards guilt of the respondent in this<\/p>\n
case. The trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove any<\/p>\n
motive on the part of the respondent to commit murder of her husband. In<\/p>\n
this regard, it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “62. The next circumstance as relied upon by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
            ‘motive’ of this accused Jaswant Pal to eliminate the deceased.<\/p>\n
            This circumstance has not been proved by the prosecution by<\/p>\n
            leading cogent and satisfactory evidence. Prem Chand (PW3),<\/p>\n
            no doubt, stated that before him this accused had confessed that<\/p>\n
            he had illicit relations with co-accused Meena who was wife of<\/p>\n
            deceased Om Parkash. He further deposed that he had taken<\/p>\n
            Meena to Delhi and there nephew of Om Parkash had seen him<\/p>\n
            and Meena in a compromised position. He had told it to Om<\/p>\n
            Parkash. Om Parkash had then quarreled with Meena.<\/p>\n
            Thereafter they (both the accused) planned to kill Om Parkash<\/p>\n
            and in pursuant of that conspiracy he murdered him by firing<\/p>\n
            gun shot at him as discussed here-in-before. But from such like<\/p>\n
            statement made by PW3 it is hard to infer any such illicit<\/p>\n
            relations. Nephew of Om Parkash was the best witness to<\/p>\n
            depose about the alleged incident witnessed by him in Delhi.<\/p>\n
            Neither his name was divulged by this PW3 nor investigating<\/p>\n
            agency opted to examine or site him as prosecution witness. In<\/p>\n
            the absence of that direct evidence which was available to the<\/p>\n
            prosecution to prove this fact it shall not be safe to place<\/p>\n
            reliance upon this circumstantial evidence.
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             63.Reference was also made to the testimony of Charanjit Kaur<\/p>\n
               (PW17) who had also stated that on 15.6.2004 accused had<\/p>\n
               stated before her that illicit relations between Jaswant Pal<\/p>\n
               and his wife were irking him. On account of that he was<\/p>\n
               quite perturbed. This statement made by this PW17 also does<\/p>\n
               not appeal to reason at all. Had the things been like that there<\/p>\n
               would have been no occasion for the deceased Om Parkash<\/p>\n
               to take the accused Jaswant Pal along while going to<\/p>\n
               Panchkula. Om Parkash had, according to this PW17, no<\/p>\n
               liking for accused Jaswant Pal. He was an eyesore for him.<\/p>\n
               Still when he was taking him along it is not believable that<\/p>\n
               deceased was perturbed on account of the illicit relations of<\/p>\n
               accused Jaswant Pal with accused Meena. This version<\/p>\n
               seems to have been introduced by her           for some other<\/p>\n
               reasons. But the fact remained that accused Jaswant Pal<\/p>\n
               could not be taken to have committed crime having the<\/p>\n
               above motive in his mind.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             As per evidence on record, finding given by the trial Court is<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n
             Against the respondent, it was allegation that the murder of her<\/p>\n
husband was committed by Jaswant Pal at her instance. After analysing the<\/p>\n
evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has failed to establish on record that there were illicit relations<\/p>\n
between the respondent and her co-accused. To prove conspiracy between<\/p>\n
both the accused, reliance was placed upon telephone calls made by co-<\/p>\n
accused to the respondent on the night intervening 15 & 16th June, 2004. To
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
discard story of calls made by co-accused, the trial Court has referred to the<\/p>\n
testimony of Suresh Kumar (PW7), an employee with the deceased, who<\/p>\n
had stated that the telephone in dispute was installed in house of the<\/p>\n
deceased. The cable operation business was also being run from that place.<\/p>\n
Jaswant Pal accused was working in a section, which used to remain open<\/p>\n
around the clock and workers used to continue to work there. Jaswant Pal<\/p>\n
used to work upto 12 at mid-night and upto 1 AM. Mother of Om Parkash<\/p>\n
and two children were also staying in the house. By noting as above, the<\/p>\n
trial Court has rightly held that respondent Meena alone was not to receive<\/p>\n
the calls on the phone in question. In such like situation, Jaswant Pal<\/p>\n
accused would not think of using the phone, which was being used in the<\/p>\n
business premises. Prosecution story of hearing conversation between<\/p>\n
respondent Meena and accused Jaswant Pal by her son was also rightly<\/p>\n
discarded by the trial Court. In that regard, it was observed as under:<\/p>\n
            “69. The above submission made by learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
            is devoid of merits. First of all this witness Himanshu (PW24)<\/p>\n
            was a child aged about nine years. At the time of occurrence he<\/p>\n
            was aged between six to seven years when he is alleged to have<\/p>\n
            heard the above conversation. A boy of such an age group<\/p>\n
            cannot recollect the exact account of conversation after the<\/p>\n
            span of eight to nine months. No steps were taken for<\/p>\n
            examining him during initial investigations. A permission was<\/p>\n
            sought for further investigation. During that investigation his<\/p>\n
            statement was recorded and then he was produced in the court<\/p>\n
            as PW24. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that this witness<\/p>\n
            could not be a tutored witness. He had already lost his father.
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
         His mother was in jail. In their absence he was in custody of<\/p>\n
         Jagir Dass (complainant) PW1 who was only an employee of<\/p>\n
         the deceased Om Parkash. Despite the fact that he was his real<\/p>\n
         brother, immediately after his death he moved an application<\/p>\n
         for seeking permission to manage the property left by Om<\/p>\n
         Parkash on behalf of his minor sons. In that petition (Ex. DA)<\/p>\n
         he had categorically mentioned that he wanted to become<\/p>\n
         guardian of the minor children as well as property of his brother<\/p>\n
         Om Parkash. He had further mentioned in his affidavit (Ex.<\/p>\n
         DH) filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh<\/p>\n
         that children of Om Prakash i.e. Himanshu (PW24) and Sahil<\/p>\n
         were in his custody. That being so he had every opportunity to<\/p>\n
         tutor this docile child to depose in particular fashion. The claim<\/p>\n
         of the prosecution that this witness could not be examined at<\/p>\n
         relevant time as he was away of Rajpura is unbelievable. Even<\/p>\n
         if he was away of Rajpura the place was not far off that he<\/p>\n
         could not be examined. In such a situation, this witness seems<\/p>\n
         to have been procured and projected by PW1 (complainant)<\/p>\n
         with an idea to plug the loop hole as prior to his examination<\/p>\n
         statement of this PW1 had been recorded in the court and he<\/p>\n
         must have been panicky on account of certain revelations made<\/p>\n
         by him during his cross-examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         70.Be that as it , may even if for the sake of arguments, it is<\/p>\n
           taken that this witness has been rightly examined by the<\/p>\n
           prosecution, his testimony does not inspire confidence. In his<\/p>\n
           cross-examination he admitted that he, his mother (Meena)
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
              and his father (Om Parkash) used to sleep in one room<\/p>\n
              whereas his younger brother and his grand mother used to<\/p>\n
              sleep in another room. He further stated that when telephonic<\/p>\n
              call was received at 11 p.m. his grandmother and his younger<\/p>\n
              brother were sleeping and he was sleeping with his mother in<\/p>\n
              another room. He further added that he had picked up the<\/p>\n
              phone first under the impression that it must be call from his<\/p>\n
              father. Again said the phone was picked up by his mother<\/p>\n
              first and thereafter he had picked up the receiver. He further<\/p>\n
              stated that he had picked up the phone from another room<\/p>\n
              where he was sleeping all alone and his mother had picked<\/p>\n
              up the receiver from the bed room where they used to sleep.<\/p>\n
              This statement itself demolishes the whole claim of the<\/p>\n
              prosecution. It is not believable as to how he had talked on<\/p>\n
              telephone holding the parallel line when admittedly he and<\/p>\n
              this accused Meena were sleeping in the same room. It has<\/p>\n
              not been the case of this witness that he had on hearing the<\/p>\n
              telephone ring gone to another room. This all shows that this<\/p>\n
              witness has only been dragged into the fray by the<\/p>\n
              complainant for obvious reasons.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that Jagir Dass<\/p>\n
(PW1) appeared to have involved the respondent in this case because of<\/p>\n
ulterior considerations. To discard testimony of Himanshu (PW24), son of<\/p>\n
the respondent, the trial Court has noticed that at the time of alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence, he was of very tender age and his tutoring could not be ruled
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                               -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
out. The trial Court has given further sufficient reasons to discard theory of<\/p>\n
conspiracy between the respondent and her co-accused in paras No. 77 to 80<\/p>\n
of the impugned judgment. Counsel for the applicant has failed to show any<\/p>\n
misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court, which may necessitate<\/p>\n
any interference by us in judgment of acquittal. As has been discussed<\/p>\n
earlier, in view of evidence on record, view favouring the respondent was<\/p>\n
possible.\n<\/p>\n
            Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri<\/p>\n
v. State of Gujarat,<\/a> 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a<\/p>\n
case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be<\/p>\n
adopted by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
            A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa<\/p>\n
Singh,<\/a> 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal<\/p>\n
against acquittal, has opined as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be<\/p>\n
            examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
            Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)<\/p>\n
            SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against<\/p>\n
            acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal<\/p>\n
            were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and<\/p>\n
            merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a<\/p>\n
            different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Counsel for the State has failed to show that the trial Court has<\/p>\n
committed any error on facts or material irregularity, on the basis of which<\/p>\n
judgment under challenge qua the respondent can be set aside.
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008                             -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
            For the reasons, mentioned above, this application fails and the<\/p>\n
same is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                  (JORA SINGH)
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nJanuary 29, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
DKC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 January, 2009 CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 687-MA OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 29, 2009 Parties Name State (Union Territory Chandigarh) …APPLICANT. VERSUS Meena …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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-203433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 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-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-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=\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-19T20:32:36+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=\"14 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-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-19T20:32:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2689,\"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-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\",\"name\":\"State (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-19T20:32:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 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 (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 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-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-19T20:32:36+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-19T20:32:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009"},"wordCount":2689,"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-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009","name":"State (Union Territory ... vs Meena on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-19T20:32:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-union-territory-vs-meena-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State (Union Territory … vs Meena on 29 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\/203433","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=203433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}