{"id":208412,"date":"2009-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-18T18:13:27","modified_gmt":"2017-10-18T12:43:27","slug":"dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009<\/div>\n
   Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n   Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.   1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n       AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n                       Crl. Appeal No. 43-DB of 2000.\n                       DECIDED ON : 26.2.2009\n\n\nDilbag Singh\n\n                                    Appellant.\n\n                   VERSUS\nState of Haryana\n\n                                    Respondent.\n\n                       Crl. Appeal No.44-DB of 2000.\n                       DECIDED ON : 26.2.2009\n\n\nKuldeep Singh\n\n                                    Appellant.\n\n\n                   VERSUS\n\nState of Haryana\n\n                                    Respondent.\n\n\n\n\nCORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\nPresent: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate, with\n         Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for\n         appellants.\n\n        Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate\n        General, Haryana.\n      Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n     Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         2\n\n\nJORA SINGH,J.\n<\/pre>\n
               Dilbag Singh       filed Criminal Appeal No.<\/p>\n
43-DB of 2000 and Kuldeep Singh filed Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
No. 44-DB of 2000 to impugn the judgment dated<\/p>\n
4.12.1999    and   order     dated    8.12.1999        rendered    by<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No.<\/p>\n
157 of 1999; Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1999 bearing<\/p>\n
First Information Report No. 1093 dated 26.12.1990,<\/p>\n
registered under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code,<\/p>\n
at    Police Station City Karnal whereby they were<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh also convicted for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 25 of the Arms Act.           Appellants-accused<\/p>\n
were sentenced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                      “Both the accused were sentenced to<\/p>\n
           undergo    life   imprisonment        for    life    under<\/p>\n
           Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      Further more accused Dilbag Singh<\/p>\n
           was hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
           imprisonment for one year for the commission<\/p>\n
           of offence punishable under Section 25 of the<\/p>\n
           Arms Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Separate     challan      was    presented          against<\/p>\n
Joginder     Singh     accused.      Vide       judgment        dated
\n       Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
      Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.      3<\/span><\/p>\n
16.11.1999, he was acquitted of the charge levelled<\/p>\n
against him.\n<\/p>\n
             Against acquittal of Joginder Singh, no appeal<\/p>\n
was preferred by the State.\n<\/p>\n
             Prosecution story, in brief, is that Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar complainant was serving in PWD B&R as S.D.O.<\/p>\n
Accordingly to him, his office was situated near I.T.I<\/p>\n
Chowk Kunjpura Road, Karnal. On 21,12,1990 Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar had withdrawn amount from State Bank of India,<\/p>\n
Mall Road, Karnal for making payment to the labourers.<\/p>\n
Out     of   the   above   said    amount,    an   amount   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,30,000\/- was got transferred from the chest            of<\/p>\n
Provisional Division No.3 to his own chest. Payment was<\/p>\n
kept in the chest in the presence of Zile Singh SDC. One<\/p>\n
key of the chest was with the complainant and the<\/p>\n
second key was with Zile Singh SDC.            On 22.12.1990<\/p>\n
complainant had distributed some payment to the local<\/p>\n
labour at about 7.30 P.M. and Muster roll was placed in<\/p>\n
the chest after payment.          On Sunday, Rs.37,000\/- was<\/p>\n
distributed amongst the labourer. Balance amount was<\/p>\n
in the chest. Rs.30,000\/- brought from the Bank was<\/p>\n
already in the     chest for payment to the labourers and<\/p>\n
payment of Petrol and Diesel bills etc. Payment was to<\/p>\n
be distributed on 26.12.1990.On 22.12.1990 complainant
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.             4<\/span><\/p>\n
and Zile Singh SDC had gone to their respective houses.<\/p>\n
Shugan Chand Beldar was on duty as Chowkidar since<\/p>\n
14.12.1990 in place of Nand Ram Chowkidar.                          On<\/p>\n
26.12.1990 at 9 A.M. complainant came and the office<\/p>\n
was found locked.       Shugan Chand Chowkidar was not<\/p>\n
present there. Sultan Beldar was sent to locate Shugan<\/p>\n
Chand Chowkidar but Shugan Chand                     Chowkidar was<\/p>\n
not available. Lock of the office was broken.                   Shugan<\/p>\n
Chand Chowkidar was found lying dead on the cot with<\/p>\n
injuries on his person. The chest was found open                    and<\/p>\n
about Rs.1,12,000\/- were stolen from the chest. An iron<\/p>\n
rod was lying near the chest. Some unknown assailants<\/p>\n
had stolen the cash by damaging the chest, after<\/p>\n
murdering      Shugan Chand Chowkidar.                     Statement of<\/p>\n
Surinder Kumar SDO was recorded by Fateh Singh Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector when he had gone to the Police Station.<\/p>\n
            In view of the statement of Surinder Singh<\/p>\n
SDO, formal First Information Report was registered.<\/p>\n
Special   Report     was     sent   to   the       Ilaqa    Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Wireless message was sent to summon Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory team and dog squad.\n<\/p>\n
            Police   party   headed      by    Fateh        Singh   Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector     had gone to the spot. Inquest report was<\/p>\n
prepared. Photographer was also arranged. Dead body
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         5<\/span><\/p>\n
was sent     for    post mortem examination.          Rough site<\/p>\n
plan with correct marginal notes was prepared.              Blood<\/p>\n
stained earth, locks Darri, iron rod, pair of shoes were<\/p>\n
lifted from the spot. Blood stained earth was lifted from<\/p>\n
the spot and made into a sealed parcel.             Sealed parcel<\/p>\n
along with other articles lifted from the spot              were<\/p>\n
taken    into   police   possession    vide    separate   memos<\/p>\n
attested by the witnesses.       Sealed parcel of the clothes<\/p>\n
worn by the deceased was produced before Fateh Singh<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector . Parcel was taken inot police possession<\/p>\n
vide memo attested by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
           After that, Om Parkash Inspector had carried<\/p>\n
out the investigation of the case.         On 26.12.1990 Om<\/p>\n
Parkash Inspector had recorded the statement of Zile<\/p>\n
Singh SDC.         On 1.1.1991 police party headed by Om<\/p>\n
Parkash was present near Railway Chowk, Gharaunda.<\/p>\n
Surinder Kumar SDO met the police party at about 9.30<\/p>\n
A.M. In the meantime, Dilbag Singh was noticed near<\/p>\n
the chowk. He was apprehended. On search of the<\/p>\n
accused      one revolver and two live cartridges were<\/p>\n
recovered.      Regarding       recovery       of   armed       and<\/p>\n
ammunition,        separate   case   was   registered     against<\/p>\n
Dilbag    Singh.      Accused    was    interrogated      and    on<\/p>\n
interrogation accused suffered disclosure statement that
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.    6<\/span><\/p>\n
he has kept concealed the stolen money in the “Turi<\/p>\n
Wala Kotha”. He knew about the same and can get the<\/p>\n
same recovered. As per disclosure statement suffered by<\/p>\n
the accused, accused got recovered Rs.47403\/- from the<\/p>\n
specified place along with acquaintance roll. Cash along<\/p>\n
with acquaintance roll was taken into police possession<\/p>\n
vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. After that<\/p>\n
police party had gone to the fields of Kuldeep Singh. He<\/p>\n
was also apprehended         and interrogated.    Accused<\/p>\n
suffered   disclosure   statement    that   he   has   kept<\/p>\n
concealed cash in envelop in the kotha. He knew about<\/p>\n
the same and can get the same recovered.           As per<\/p>\n
disclosure statement, accused got recovered Rs.63,803\/-<\/p>\n
from the specified place.    Amount with    envelope was<\/p>\n
taken into police possession vide separate memo attested<\/p>\n
by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
           Third accused Joginder Singh was arrested<\/p>\n
from village Staundi. Accused was interrogated but no<\/p>\n
recovery was effected from him.\n<\/p>\n
           On return to the Police Station, case property<\/p>\n
was deposited with the MHC.\n<\/p>\n
           On 2.1.1999 accused Dilbag Singh      was again<\/p>\n
interrogated. He suffered disclosure statement that he<\/p>\n
has kept concealed a bunch of keys near the Krishna
\n      Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
     Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.      7<\/span><\/p>\n
Mandir, Kunjpura Road. He told that he knew about the<\/p>\n
same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of<\/p>\n
the disclosure statement, accused got recovered bunch of<\/p>\n
keys from the specified place. Keys were taken into<\/p>\n
police possession vide separate memo attested by the<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
          On 3.1.1999 Dilbag Singh accused was again<\/p>\n
interrogated.        Dilbag   Singh     suffered   disclosure<\/p>\n
statement that he has kept concealed a knife           in his<\/p>\n
house. He knew about the same and could get the same<\/p>\n
recovered.    In pursuance of the disclosure statement,<\/p>\n
accused got recovered a spring actuated knife . Sketch<\/p>\n
of the spring actuated knife          was prepared and was<\/p>\n
taken into police possession vide separate memo attested<\/p>\n
by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the<\/p>\n
MHC.\n<\/p>\n
          After completion of investigation, accused were<\/p>\n
challaned.\n<\/p>\n
          The Case was committed to the Court of<\/p>\n
Session for trial.\n<\/p>\n
          All the accused were charged under Sections<\/p>\n
460 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n
          Dilbag Singh accused was separately charged
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.     8<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Accused pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
         In order to substantiate          the charges, the<\/p>\n
prosecution examined        PW-1   Dr. R.A.Mittal who had<\/p>\n
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of<\/p>\n
Shugan Chand son of Shri Parsa Jhinwar on 26.12.1990<\/p>\n
and found the following injuries on his person:-<\/p>\n
         1. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm was present<\/p>\n
            over left side of neck on anterior-lateral<\/p>\n
            aspect in the middle. It was 5 cm deep and<\/p>\n
            horizontally probing could be done upto 10<\/p>\n
            cm. Major vessels on this side were cut.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         2. Incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm size was<\/p>\n
            present over left side of neck         running<\/p>\n
            transversely 1 cm from mid line in middle<\/p>\n
            part of neck. It was 5 cm deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm was present<\/p>\n
            over left side of lower part of abdomen 9 cm<\/p>\n
            infero-lateral to umbilicus. It was 1 cm deep.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         4. 1 cm above and lateral to injury No.3, there<\/p>\n
            was another incised wound of 3 cm x 1.5 cm<\/p>\n
            size it was 9 cm deep, small intestine had<\/p>\n
            come out of it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5. Incised wound of 2.5 cm x .5 cm was present
\n    Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.        9<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             over left side of abdomen in upper part.       It<\/p>\n
             was 5 cm supero-lateral to umbilicus. It was<\/p>\n
             .5 cm deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           6. Incised wound of 3 cm x 2 cm size was<\/p>\n
             present over right side of abdomen in lower<\/p>\n
             part. It was 9 cm deep and was 10 cm lateral<\/p>\n
             to umbilicus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Cause of death as per opinion of the Doctor was<\/p>\n
due to shock and haemorrhage.           Injuries were ante<\/p>\n
mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in<\/p>\n
ordinary   course    of   nature.   Probable   duration   that<\/p>\n
elapsed between death and post mortem was within 48<\/p>\n
hours.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-2     Manohar Lal had prepared scaled site<\/p>\n
plan Ex. PD.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-3 Kanshi Ram Clerk stated that he used to<\/p>\n
prepare TA bill and acquaintance roll. Ex.PE was<\/p>\n
prepared by him on 19.12.1990.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-4 Kiru Ram brother of the deceased had<\/p>\n
identified the dead body of Shugan Chand<\/p>\n
           PW-5Head       Constable   Om     Parkash      had<\/p>\n
delivered special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 1.55<\/p>\n
P.M. on 26.12.1990.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-6 Ram Singh Clerk stated that he had sent
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.      10<\/span><\/p>\n
sanction order   of    crossing the efficiency bar   of Shri<\/p>\n
R.P.Sharma, Sub Divisional Engineer after making entry<\/p>\n
in the despatch register on 29.11.1990.<\/p>\n
         PW-7 Constable Siri Krishan; PW-8 Constable<\/p>\n
Jai Ram; PW-9 Head Constable Chand Singh and PW-10<\/p>\n
MHC Bhim Singh had tendered their affidavits Ex. PH,<\/p>\n
Ex.PJ. Ex.PE and Ex.PL respectively.<\/p>\n
         PW-11 Zile Singh SDC and PW-12 Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO (complainant) in this case have supported<\/p>\n
the prosecution story by saying that Sughan Chand was<\/p>\n
Chowkidar in the office.      On the intervening night of<\/p>\n
21\/22.12.1990 Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep Singh came to<\/p>\n
office at 3 A.M. On 26.12.1990.        Sughan Chand was<\/p>\n
found murdered in the office. Surinder Kumar SDO<\/p>\n
further stated that he had withdrawn payment from the<\/p>\n
bank for making       payment to the labourers. Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
was already lying in the chest. Some of the amount was<\/p>\n
brought from Divisional Office.       On 21.12.1990 total<\/p>\n
cash in the chest was Rs.1,30,000\/-.         An amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.37000\/- was distributed to the labourers.    Remaining<\/p>\n
cash was to be distributed on 23.12.1999. On that day,<\/p>\n
Junior Engineer was not available.      Amount was to be<\/p>\n
distributed on 26.12.1990. Shugan Chand was murdered<\/p>\n
in the office. Chest was found broken. Cash was stolen.\n<\/p>\n
         Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
        Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.       11<\/span><\/p>\n
He had lodged report to the police and later on in his<\/p>\n
presence, Dilbag Singh got recovered cash, acquaintance<\/p>\n
roll.     Kuldeep Singh also got      recovered cash, and one<\/p>\n
envelope.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-13 Head Constable Raghbir Singh had<\/p>\n
tendered his affidavit Ex.PV.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-14 Assistant Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh<\/p>\n
was with the police party of Om Parksash and in his<\/p>\n
presence case was investigated.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-15 Inspector Fateh Singh             had initially<\/p>\n
investigated the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-16    Inspector     Om   Parkash      had   partly<\/p>\n
investigated the case. He had arrested Dilbag Singh and<\/p>\n
Kuldeep       Singh on 1.1.1991        and   as    per disclosure<\/p>\n
statement got recovered cash, Muster Role, key and<\/p>\n
envelop etc.<\/p>\n
             After     close   of   prosecution     evidence,   the<\/p>\n
accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to<\/p>\n
explain the allegations levelled against them.            Accused<\/p>\n
denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent.<\/p>\n
             Defence version of Kuldeep Singh was               that<\/p>\n
half killa of land was owned by Bijay Singh and the<\/p>\n
same was to be purchased by them.                 Bijay Singh had<\/p>\n
demanded         Rs.75,000\/- but they were ready to pay
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.      12<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/-. An amount of       Rs. 50,000\/- was borrowed<\/p>\n
from Daya Nand son of his maternal uncle, Arjan. An<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.65,000\/- was taken away by the police from<\/p>\n
his house on the allegation that number of currency<\/p>\n
notes are to be tallied with the currency notes stolen<\/p>\n
from the PWD office. Money was not returned inspite of<\/p>\n
repeated requests and the same was utilized to implicate<\/p>\n
him in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
           Defence version of Dilbag Singh and Joginder<\/p>\n
Singh was that they were innocent.\n<\/p>\n
           In defence, Doctor P.K.Bhatia appeared and<\/p>\n
stated that he had medico legally examined Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh.      Disability   certificate   Ex.PE   was    issued.<\/p>\n
Disability was 70%.\n<\/p>\n
           DW-2 Daya Nand stated that he was owning<\/p>\n
land.    Suger Cane was supplied to the mill.        Payment<\/p>\n
was received from the mill.       Rs.50,000\/- was given to<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh to purchase land.\n<\/p>\n
           DW-3 Bijay Singh stated that he was owning<\/p>\n
about 8-1\/2 killas of land. \u00bd killa was to be         sold to<\/p>\n
Kuldeelp Singh in the sum of Rs.80,000\/- but Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh was ready to pay Rs.50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
           DW-4 Mange Ram stated that he was going<\/p>\n
towards the fields. Police was seen      near the house of
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         13<\/span><\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh. Police had recovered some amount. He<\/p>\n
was requested to sign the document but he had not<\/p>\n
agreed to sign.\n<\/p>\n
         DW-5 Samay Singh Record keeper had brought<\/p>\n
record of Sugar mill and proved payment sheets Ex.DF,<\/p>\n
Ex. DG and Ex.DH.\n<\/p>\n
         DW-6 Rajinder Singh Clerk of            Co-operative<\/p>\n
Sugar Mill stated that vide          payment sheets Ex.DF,<\/p>\n
Ex.DG and Ex.DH. payment of sugar cane was given to<\/p>\n
the supplier.\n<\/p>\n
         We have heard learned defence counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants,     Mr. K.S.Godara, Deputy Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Haryana for the State     and have gone through the file<\/p>\n
very carefully and thoroughly.\n<\/p>\n
         Defence     counsel   for   the   appellants-accused<\/p>\n
argued that case is based on circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n
There is no direct evidence.         According to the story<\/p>\n
Shugan Chand was Chowkidar in the office of PWD<\/p>\n
B&R. He       was on duty on the intervening night of<\/p>\n
25\/26.12.1990. On the next day, he was found murdered<\/p>\n
in the office.    Cash was found stolen from the chest.<\/p>\n
Only evidence on the file       to connect the appellants-<\/p>\n
accused with the crime is that on the intervening night<\/p>\n
of 21\/22.12.1990 Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep Singh had
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.    14<\/span><\/p>\n
slept in the office from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M as per Zile Singh<\/p>\n
SDC. Second link is the recovery of cash as per<\/p>\n
disclosure statements but prosecution story inspires no<\/p>\n
confidence because Zile Singh was SDC. He was staying<\/p>\n
in village Charao situated at the distance of seven<\/p>\n
kilometer   from the office.   There was no cot   or bed.<\/p>\n
Zile Singh was not expected to stay in the office. Zile<\/p>\n
Singh in his cross examination admitted that Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh did not work in his office.     Finger prints were<\/p>\n
lifted. Lock of chest was intact but the chest was found<\/p>\n
open.   He did not supply his finger prints.   Police was<\/p>\n
requested not to take his finger prints.       He did not<\/p>\n
disclose to anybody that on      the intervening night of<\/p>\n
21\/22.12.1990 Dilbag Singh and       Kuldeep Singh had<\/p>\n
slept in the office. Stay of   Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh   from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. on the intervening night<\/p>\n
of 21\/22.12.1990 is not correct one. If finger prints were<\/p>\n
available then why Zile Singh SDC was not willing       to<\/p>\n
supply his finger prints. Finger prints of the appellants-<\/p>\n
accused were not got compared with the disputed finger<\/p>\n
prints lifted from the spot. Surinder Kumar SDO is the<\/p>\n
next witness but his statement is also without any<\/p>\n
evidentiary value. There was no idea to withdraw heavy<\/p>\n
payment from the Bank on 21.12.1990, when 23, 24 and
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.     15<\/span><\/p>\n
25.12.1990 were not the working days. An amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.37,000\/- was distributed. Remaining amount was to<\/p>\n
be distributed on 23.12.1990 but no explanation         why<\/p>\n
amount was not distributed. Explanation put forward by<\/p>\n
Surinder Kumar was that Junior Engineer was not<\/p>\n
available.   But nothing on the record that concerned<\/p>\n
Junior Engineer was not on duty. On 1.1.1991 Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar was present near Railway Chowk Gharonda and<\/p>\n
per chance police party was seen headed by Om Parkash<\/p>\n
Inspector. First disclosure statement suffered by Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh is dated 1.1.1991. As per disclosure statement, an<\/p>\n
amount of    Rs.47403\/- with Muster roll was recovered.<\/p>\n
Muster roll was not a valuable document. There was no<\/p>\n
idea to keep Muster roll with cash. Then Kuldeep Singh<\/p>\n
got recovered cash and envelope as          per disclosure<\/p>\n
statement but envelope not on the file. No explanation<\/p>\n
where envelope has gone.      There was no identification<\/p>\n
mark on the cash. Appellants-accused were not expected<\/p>\n
to keep official envelope.    Again, there is disclosure<\/p>\n
statement dated 2.1.1991 by Dilbag Singh.           As per<\/p>\n
disclosure statement, bunch of keys was recovered.<\/p>\n
Third disclosure statement is dated 3.1.1991 and as per<\/p>\n
disclosure   statement    spring     actuated   knife   was<\/p>\n
recovered but knife was not sealed as per Investigating
\n       Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
      Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.    16<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer. Money was withdrawn on 21.12.1990.             On<\/p>\n
22.12.1990 was working day. Payment was distributed<\/p>\n
on that day. When Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep Singh were<\/p>\n
not known to Zile Singh SDC and no test identification<\/p>\n
parade     was arranged then story is doubtful that Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh and Kuldeep Singh had gone to the office of PWD<\/p>\n
B&R and had slept there from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. When<\/p>\n
finger prints were available then question is why finger<\/p>\n
prints of Zile Singh SDC and Surinder Singh SDO were<\/p>\n
not    taken    for   comparison.      They   were   facing<\/p>\n
departmental inquiry. Possibility of mischief        at the<\/p>\n
hands of Zile Singh SDC and Surinder Kumar SDO<\/p>\n
cannot be ruled out. One revolver and two cartridges<\/p>\n
were recovered from Dilbag Singh. Separate case was<\/p>\n
registered under the Arms Act.          Dilbag Singh was<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges levelled against him.        That<\/p>\n
means story qua arrest, recovery of revolver           and<\/p>\n
cartridges was found to be doubtful, that is why, Dilbag<\/p>\n
Slingh was acquitted of the charge levelled aginst him.<\/p>\n
One of the appellants-accused namely Dilbag Singh is<\/p>\n
handicapped. Disability was 70%. Recovery of cash was<\/p>\n
effected    from a room which was not owned by Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh, particularly, when he cannot walk properly<\/p>\n
without help. Recovery of cash from the “Turi Wala
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         17<\/span><\/p>\n
Kotha” is also doubtful. In fact, Zile Singh and Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO to save their skin had arranged the money<\/p>\n
and the same       was shown to have recovered           as per<\/p>\n
disclosure statement suffered by Kuldeep Singh and<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh. No recovery from Joginder Singh.            Chain<\/p>\n
of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Evidence on<\/p>\n
the file was not properly appreciated.<\/p>\n
          Mr.     K.S.Godara,   Deputy     Advocate    General,<\/p>\n
Haryana       argued that Shugan Chand was Chowkidar in<\/p>\n
the office of PWD B&R. On 21.12.1990, Surinder Kumar<\/p>\n
SDO   had      withdrawn     payment    from    the   Bank    for<\/p>\n
distribution to the labourers. Some of the amount was<\/p>\n
distributed. Remaining amount was kept in the chest.<\/p>\n
On the intervening night of 21\/22.12.1990, Dilbag Sing<\/p>\n
and Kuldeep Singh had slept in the office from 3 A.M.<\/p>\n
to 6 A.M. On 22.12.1990, Zile Singh SDC and Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO,         had gone to their respective houses.<\/p>\n
Payment lying in the chest          was to be   distributed on<\/p>\n
26.12.1990       but   on     the     intervening     night    of<\/p>\n
25\/26.12.1990, Shugan Chand was found murdered in<\/p>\n
the office.     As per disclosure statement suffered by<\/p>\n
Dilbag    Singh    and      Kuldeep    Singh,   payment       was<\/p>\n
recovered along with muster roll, bunch of keys and<\/p>\n
knife. Zile Singh, SDC and Surinder Kumar SDO had no
\n       Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
      Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.          18<\/span><\/p>\n
enmity with the appellant-accused. Evidence on the file<\/p>\n
was rightly appreciated      by the trial court to hold that<\/p>\n
chain of evidence is complete.\n<\/p>\n
           First submission of learned defence counsel<\/p>\n
was that case is based on circumstantial evidence. No<\/p>\n
eye witness but chain of circumstantial evidence is not<\/p>\n
complete. No documentary evidence on the file as to how<\/p>\n
much amount was withdrawn from State Bank of India<\/p>\n
on    21.12.1990       and   how      Rs.1,30,000\/-     was     got<\/p>\n
transferred from the chest of Provisional Division No.3<\/p>\n
to the chest of the complainant.         As per story, some of<\/p>\n
the    amount    was    distributed      to    the   labourer   on<\/p>\n
22.12.1990 but regarding distribution, no documentary<\/p>\n
proof on the file Rs.37,000\/- was distributed on Sunday<\/p>\n
but as per First Information Report                on 22.12.1990,<\/p>\n
complainant and Zile Singh SDC had gone to their<\/p>\n
respective houses, regarding distribution of Rs.37,000\/-<\/p>\n
on Sunday       no proof on the file story qua withdrawal<\/p>\n
and distribution       is doubtful. Submission of        Learned<\/p>\n
defence counsel seems         to be reasonable one. When<\/p>\n
payment is withdrawn         from the Bank by any office,<\/p>\n
then cheque is issued.       Regarding issuance         of cheque<\/p>\n
and receipt of payment entry is made in the register, but<\/p>\n
no receipt      on the file whether payment was against
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.        19<\/span><\/p>\n
cheque and in case, payment was withdrawn from the<\/p>\n
Bank and how much payment was withdrawn then who<\/p>\n
had collected the payment.          Regarding withdrawal of<\/p>\n
payment, no entry in the record. Rs.1,30,000\/- was got<\/p>\n
transferred    by the complainant to his own chest but<\/p>\n
regarding withdrawal of Rs.1,30,000\/- from the main<\/p>\n
chest and transfer to his own chest by the complainant,<\/p>\n
again no record.     Rs.30,000\/-was already lying in the<\/p>\n
chest, but regarding this payment,             again no proof.<\/p>\n
According     to   the   First    Information     Report   on<\/p>\n
22.12.1990, after distributing some payment, Zile Singh<\/p>\n
SDC and Surinder Kumar SDO had gone to their houses,<\/p>\n
then the question is as to how much payment was kept<\/p>\n
in the chest by the complainant till the close of his office<\/p>\n
on 22.12.1990. If complainant had gone to his house on<\/p>\n
22.12.1990, then how       Rs.37,000\/- was distributed     on<\/p>\n
Sunday.     Record is maintained in the office as to how<\/p>\n
many were the       labourers and to whom payment was<\/p>\n
made. Without record, it is very easy to state that<\/p>\n
payment was withdrawn            from the Bank.    Some of the<\/p>\n
payment was distributed and remaining amount was<\/p>\n
kept in the chest. So, story qua withdrawal of payment<\/p>\n
from the State Bank of India, Karnal and distribution of<\/p>\n
some payment is not genuine one.\n<\/p>\n
     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.      20<\/span><\/p>\n
         Next submission of learned defence counsel<\/p>\n
was that as per evidence, Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh had gone to the office         of complainant on the<\/p>\n
intervening night of 21\/22.12.1990 and had slept in the<\/p>\n
office from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh were not known to Zile Singh SDC or the<\/p>\n
deceased, then there was no idea to allow Dilbag Singh<\/p>\n
and Kuldeep Singh to sleep in the office. Story qua last<\/p>\n
seen is also doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
             We have gone through the evidence on the file<\/p>\n
and agree with the submission of learned defence<\/p>\n
counsel. Zile Singh SDC admitted in cross examination<\/p>\n
that his village is at a distance of 105 kilometer. He was<\/p>\n
staying in village Chayo situated at a distance of seven<\/p>\n
kilometers. Kuldeep Chand and Dilbag Singh were not<\/p>\n
known to him and admitted that Kuleep Singh did not<\/p>\n
work in his office. Zile Singh was confronted     with the<\/p>\n
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the statement,<\/p>\n
Zile Singh SDC stated that Kuldeep Singh had worked in<\/p>\n
his office    for few days. No record on the file whether<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh and Dilbag Singh had worked           in the<\/p>\n
office of PWD B&R at any stage. Kuldeep Singh and<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh were not from the village of the deceased.<\/p>\n
They are from village Gagsina, whereas the deceased
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         21<\/span><\/p>\n
was resident of village Uchha Samana. No evidence on<\/p>\n
the file that Kuldeep Singh and Dilbag Singh had ever<\/p>\n
worked with the deceased or Zile Singh SDC or Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO. Before the present occurrence, Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh and Kuldeep Singh had no litigation either with<\/p>\n
the complainant    and Zile Singh SDC or the deceased<\/p>\n
then the question is how Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh had gone to the office          of PWD B&R on the<\/p>\n
intervening night of 21\/22.12.1990 and had slept in the<\/p>\n
office from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. Zile Singh SDC was not in a<\/p>\n
position to state that Dilbag Singh and Kuldeep Singh<\/p>\n
came to his office on the intervening night of 21\/22.<\/p>\n
12.1990 and had slept from 3 A.M to 6 A.M. If Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh and Kuldeep Singh had slept in the office from 3<\/p>\n
A.M. to 6 A.M. then Zile Singh SDC should have told the<\/p>\n
police on 26.12.1990 that Dilbag Siongh and Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh residents of village Gagsina came to the office and<\/p>\n
had slept from 3 A.M. to 6 A.M. Statement of Zile Singh<\/p>\n
is doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
         Defence   counsel   for     the   appellants-accused<\/p>\n
submitted that lock of the chest was intact but the chest<\/p>\n
was found broken. There was sub-chest but the same<\/p>\n
was lying locked. Finger prints       were available but no<\/p>\n
effort was made to have finger prints of the complainant
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.    22<\/span><\/p>\n
and Zile Singh SDC. Zile Singh SDC in cross examination<\/p>\n
stated that finger prints were lifted from the chest but<\/p>\n
he did not supply his finger prints to the police. Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO had also not supplied his finger prints to the<\/p>\n
police. Police was also requested not to take their finger<\/p>\n
prints. Surinder Kumar SDO appearing as PW-12 in<\/p>\n
cross examination stated that he did not supply his<\/p>\n
finger prints to the police. In case, finger prints   were<\/p>\n
lifted from the chest or any other article lying near the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence, then there was no hitch for the<\/p>\n
complainant and Zile Singh SDC to supply their finger<\/p>\n
prints for comparison.\n<\/p>\n
         As discussed earlier, finger prints were lifted<\/p>\n
from the spot but no effort was made to have the finger<\/p>\n
prints of the appellants-accused for comparison. Finger<\/p>\n
prints of the appellants-accused could easily be obtained<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate for comparison with the disputed<\/p>\n
finger prints. No explanation is forth-coming from the<\/p>\n
side of the prosecution as to why finger prints of the<\/p>\n
appellants-accused, Zile Singh SDC and Surinder Kumar<\/p>\n
SDO were not    taken.\n<\/p>\n
         Next submission of the learned defence counsel<\/p>\n
was that an effort was made to connect the accused with<\/p>\n
the crime by effecting recovery of cash as per different
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.       23<\/span><\/p>\n
disclosure statements, Dilbag Singh was arrested on<\/p>\n
1.1.1991. Revolver along with two live cartridges was<\/p>\n
recovered. Separate case was registered again Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh, but in the Arms case, Dilbag Singh was acquitted.<\/p>\n
Story qua arrest, recovery of arms and ammunition            is<\/p>\n
doubtful. On 1.1.1991, a sum of Rs. 47,403\/- and muster<\/p>\n
roll was recovered. As per disclosure statement, Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh got recovered Rs.63803\/- with official envelope.<\/p>\n
But envelope is not on the file. No documentary proof<\/p>\n
that cash recovered is the same which was stolen from<\/p>\n
the official chest. On 2.1.1991 again Dilbag Singh was<\/p>\n
interrogated. As per disclosure statement, bunch of keys<\/p>\n
was recovered. Again on 3.1.1991, Dilbag Singh was<\/p>\n
interrogated. As per disclosure statement, Dilbag Singh<\/p>\n
got recovered knife on 4.1.1991. Dilbag Singh was<\/p>\n
handicapped.    Disability   was     70%      as   per   doctor<\/p>\n
P.K.Bhatia, who appeared as DW-1. Recovery was from<\/p>\n
the kotha.   Place of recovery was open and accessible.<\/p>\n
Owner of the kotha was not joined in the investigation of<\/p>\n
the case. With 70% disability, Dilbag Singh was not in a<\/p>\n
position to conceal cash in the kotha of some other<\/p>\n
person.   Dilbag   Singh     was     tortured.      Disclosure<\/p>\n
statement was not made voluntarily.           If Dilbag Singh<\/p>\n
and Kuldeep Singh had stolen cash from the official
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.       24<\/span><\/p>\n
chest,   then there was no idea to keep muster roll or<\/p>\n
bunch of keys with them. After committing crime,<\/p>\n
muster roll, keys or knife could easily be destroyed.<\/p>\n
          Submission of the learned defence counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants-accused is genuine one. Occurrence was<\/p>\n
on the intervening night of 25\/26.12.1990, Dilbag Singh<\/p>\n
and Kuldeep Singh were arrested on 1.1.1991. Presence<\/p>\n
of Surinder Kumar SDO at the time of arrest is not<\/p>\n
natural one. While posted as SDO in the office of PWD<\/p>\n
B&R, Karnal how Surinder Kumar had gone to the place<\/p>\n
of arrest of Dilbag Singh    appellant-accused. After the<\/p>\n
arrest of Dilbag Singh on 1.1.1991, revolver      with two<\/p>\n
live cartridges was recovered, but under the Arms Act,<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh was acquitted           of the charge levelled<\/p>\n
against him.   This fact is clear from the copy of the<\/p>\n
judgment Ex.DA on the file. So, story regarding arrest<\/p>\n
of Dilbag Singh and recovery of revolver and two live<\/p>\n
cartridges is doubtful when story qua recovery is<\/p>\n
doubtful then not   safe to opine that as per disclosure<\/p>\n
statement dated 1.1.1991. Dilbag Singh got recovered<\/p>\n
Rs.47,403\/- with muster roll. On the same day, Kuldeep<\/p>\n
Singh got recovered Rs.63,800\/- with official envelope<\/p>\n
but envelope is not on the file. Cash was expected to be<\/p>\n
retained by the appellants-accused and not the official
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.         25<\/span><\/p>\n
envelope. On 2.1.1991, again Dilbag Singh handicapped<\/p>\n
was interrogated. As per disclosure statement, bunch of<\/p>\n
keys was got recovered.        If appellants-accused     had<\/p>\n
committed    the crime, then there was no idea to keep<\/p>\n
bunch of keys. As per Zile Singh SDC, lock was intact.<\/p>\n
Chest was found open by breaking. On 3.1.1991 again<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh suffered a disclosure statement         and got<\/p>\n
recovered   knife but knife was not found to be stained<\/p>\n
with human blood. As per report of Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, Madhuban Ex.PEE\/1 material was found to<\/p>\n
be disintegrated.    Recovery of cash, bunch of keys and<\/p>\n
knife is doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
         Defence     counsel   for   the   appellants-accused<\/p>\n
argued that conduct of Zile Singh SDC and Surinder<\/p>\n
Kumar SDO is doubtful. Firstly, Zile Singh SDC had no<\/p>\n
occasion to stay in the office, if he was telling the truth,<\/p>\n
then he should have supplied his finger prints for<\/p>\n
comparison. Zile Singh SDC as per his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 161 Cr.P.C. used to sleep in the office, but in<\/p>\n
Court stated that he was not sleeping in the office daily.<\/p>\n
On the intervening night of 21\/22.12.1990, Zile Singh<\/p>\n
SDC had stayed in the office as per his version, but he<\/p>\n
did not disclose this fact to the police. There was no<\/p>\n
bedding or cot in the office. When Zile Singh SDC was
\n       Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
      Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.        26<\/span><\/p>\n
staying in the village situated at a distance of 7<\/p>\n
kilometer from the office then he was not expected to<\/p>\n
stay in the office during night time. There were holidays<\/p>\n
after 22.12.1990 till 26.12.1990, then there was no idea<\/p>\n
to withdraw heavy amount on 21.12.1990.               If payment<\/p>\n
was withdrawn on 21.12.1990, then it was very easy to<\/p>\n
disburse the amount amongst the labourers. No request<\/p>\n
should have been made to the police              not to take their<\/p>\n
finger prints. That means, there was something in the<\/p>\n
mind of Zile Singh SDC that is why he was not ready to<\/p>\n
supply his finger prints for comparison. Surinder Kumar<\/p>\n
SDO was present at the time of recoveries, but his<\/p>\n
statement is also without any evidentiary value because<\/p>\n
he was facing inquiry qua the present occurrence. He did<\/p>\n
not     supply his finger prints. Submission of learned<\/p>\n
defence counsel seems to be reasonable one. Occurrence<\/p>\n
was on the intervening night of 25\/26.12.1990. Zile<\/p>\n
Singh    had   stayed   in   the   office   on     the   night   of<\/p>\n
21\/22.12.1990,     but there was not cot or bedding              for<\/p>\n
stay in the office when finger prints were lifted from the<\/p>\n
spot, then there was no idea not to supply finger prints .<\/p>\n
Zile Singh SDC and Surinder Kumar SDO were facing<\/p>\n
inquiry.     Both seemed to be behind the seen. At the<\/p>\n
instance of Zile Singh SDC and Surinder Kumar SDO,
\n     Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.       27<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants-accused were implicated by showing recovery<\/p>\n
of cash in pursuance of the disclosure statement. Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh was handicapped. Disability was 70%. Chaff in<\/p>\n
room was up to the hight 6\/7 feet. Dilbag Singh was not<\/p>\n
in a position to walk properly without help.          Dilbag<\/p>\n
Singh   was not expected to conceal cash       in the chaff<\/p>\n
stored in the room owned by some other persons. If<\/p>\n
Dilbag Singh was to conceal cash, then it was very easy<\/p>\n
for him to conceal the      same in his own house. So,<\/p>\n
recovery of cash etc in the presence of Surinder Kumar<\/p>\n
SDO, is doubtful. Statements of Zile Singh SDC and<\/p>\n
Surinder Kumar SDO inspire no confidence.<\/p>\n
         No other contention was put forward.\n<\/p>\n
         In view of all discussed, we are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that impugned judgment suffers from           infirmity and<\/p>\n
illegality and the same is set aside. Appellants-accused<\/p>\n
are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.<\/p>\n
         Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.and Crl. Appeal No.<\/p>\n
44-DB of 2000, are hereby allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ( JORA SINGH )
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
26.02.2009.                          ( JASBIR SINGH )
\n                                         JUDGE
\nAnoop
\n Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000.   28<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009 Crl. Appeal No.43-DB of 2000. Crl. Appeal No. 44-DB of 2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Appeal No. 43-DB of 2000. DECIDED ON : 26.2.2009 Dilbag Singh Appellant. VERSUS State of Haryana Respondent. Crl. Appeal […]<\/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-208412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-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=\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-18T12:43:27+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T12:43:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5390,\"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\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T12:43:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 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":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-18T12:43:27+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T12:43:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009"},"wordCount":5390,"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\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009","name":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T12:43:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dilbag-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dilbag Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 February, 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\/208412","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=208412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208412\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}