{"id":226578,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-25T22:17:13","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T16:47:13","slug":"ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n
           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n                     -1-\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.\n\n                  Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n\n                  Date of decision:26\/8\/2008\n\nRatti Ram and others.\n\n                                               ...Petitioners.\n\n            Versus\n\nState of Haryana.\n\n                                               ...Respondent.\n\n            ...\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.\n\n            ...\n\nPresent:    Mr. Arun Yadav Advocate for the petitioners.\n\n            Mr. S.S.Goripuri, DAG Haryana.\n\n            Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate and Mr. N.K.Sanghi,\n            Advocate for the complainant.\n\n            ...\n\nK. C. Puri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            Under challenge, in this Criminal Revision, is the<\/p>\n
judgment dated 31.1.2001, passed by Shri Kuldip Jain, the then<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby he dismissed the<\/p>\n
appeal preferred against the judgment\/order delivered by
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Mrs.Anita Dahiya, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari,<\/p>\n
vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.500\/-each and in default of payment of fine, to<\/p>\n
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, under Section<\/p>\n
323 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one<\/p>\n
year and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each and in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
one month, under Section 324 IPC and to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each and<\/p>\n
in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 325 IPC.<\/p>\n
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
           The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 5.8.1990, at<\/p>\n
about 5.30 AM, in furtherance of their common intention,the<\/p>\n
petitioners caused injuries to PW-2 Bir Singh complainant and<\/p>\n
PW-3 Ami Lal with the help of Jelley and Lathis. The rescue call<\/p>\n
of the injured attracted Chiranji Lal and Amar Singh at the scene of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The complaint, in the matter, was made to the local<\/p>\n
police by Bir Singh.\n<\/p>\n
           After investigation, the accused were challaned. The
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused\/petitioners were accordingly charge-sheeted to which they<\/p>\n
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
           In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined<\/p>\n
PW-1 Dr. R.S.Gupta, PW-2 Bir Singh, complainant and PW-3 Ami<\/p>\n
Lal, injured.\n<\/p>\n
           Since the prosecution failed to conclude its entire<\/p>\n
evidence even after availing of several opportunities including the<\/p>\n
last, so the evidence of the prosecution was closed by the Court<\/p>\n
order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate IInd<\/p>\n
Class, Rewari.\n<\/p>\n
           The statements of accused\/petitioners under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C were recorded in which they denied all the prosecution<\/p>\n
allegations and stated that they were innocent and falsely<\/p>\n
implicated in the case.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused examined DW-1 one Chiranji Lal and<\/p>\n
closed the defence evidence, after tendering into evidence, certain<\/p>\n
documents.\n<\/p>\n
             On the conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced, as noticed earlier.\n<\/p>\n
           Feeling aggrieved, they filed an appeal which was also<\/p>\n
dismissed by Shri Kuldip Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge,
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rewari vide impugned judgment dated 31.1.2001.<\/p>\n
           Still feeling dis-satisfied, the petitioners have filed the<\/p>\n
instant Criminal Revision in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted<\/p>\n
that no independent witness has been examined. The Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer has also not been examined and the revisionists have been<\/p>\n
prejudiced on that count.\n<\/p>\n
           So far as non-joining of independent witness is<\/p>\n
concerned, the evidence of both the injured witnesses is sufficient<\/p>\n
to conclude the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The<\/p>\n
presence of both the injured witnesses cannot be doubted being<\/p>\n
stamped witnesses. There is no reason for them to falsely implicate<\/p>\n
the accused and to allow the actual culprits to go scot free .The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the revisionists could not show any<\/p>\n
circumstance which prejudices the case of the revisionists on<\/p>\n
account non-examination of the Investigating Officer. So, the non-<\/p>\n
examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the revisionists has further<\/p>\n
submitted that Chiranji Lal, the alleged eye witness of the<\/p>\n
occurrence has been examined by the revisionists and he has dis-\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
proved the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
           I have carefully considered the said submission.<\/p>\n
           Both the Courts below have discussed the factum of<\/p>\n
examination of Chiranji Lal as a defence witness. Both the Courts<\/p>\n
below have reached at the conclusion that his testimony is not<\/p>\n
trust-worthy. In the villages, nobody except the relatives or the<\/p>\n
complainants come forward to depose as nobody likes to have<\/p>\n
enmity with the others. Both the Courts below have rightly not<\/p>\n
given much importance to the testimony of DW-1 Chiranji Lal.<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the petitioners has further<\/p>\n
submitted that documents, Exhibits D1 and D2 prove the<\/p>\n
possession of the revisionists. In fact, the complainant party has<\/p>\n
come in the land of the petitioners and, on that count, the<\/p>\n
occurrence had taken place.\n<\/p>\n
           Both the Courts below have also dealt with this aspect<\/p>\n
of the case elaborately. It is not the case of the revisionists in their<\/p>\n
statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that they caused<\/p>\n
injuries in their self defence or in self defence of their property.<\/p>\n
The said argument is meritless.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the petitioners has further<\/p>\n
submitted that no recovery of weapons of offence has been
\n             Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
effected from the revisionists and that there are discrepancies in the<\/p>\n
statements of the eye witnesses and, on that count, the petitioners<\/p>\n
are entitled to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
            I have carefully considered the said submission.<\/p>\n
            Minor discrepancies are bound to occur even in the<\/p>\n
statements of truthful witnesses,after the passage of time. The fact<\/p>\n
that the recovery of weapons of offence has not been effected is<\/p>\n
not fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, both the Courts below have<\/p>\n
recorded the guilt of the accused by concurrent findings. No<\/p>\n
interference in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is<\/p>\n
made out.\n<\/p>\n
            Lastly, the learned counsel for the revisionists has<\/p>\n
submitted that the accused have been convicted under Section 325<\/p>\n
IPC, without examining the concerned doctor. Dr. L.C.Mittal, who<\/p>\n
conducted X-ray examination has not been produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution in the trial Court. The learned trial Court has observed<\/p>\n
that X-ray report is perse admissible and the said finding is against<\/p>\n
law and facts on the record. The prosecution examined PW-1<\/p>\n
Dr.R.S.Gupta, Medical Officer, PHC Dharuhera who has examined<\/p>\n
Bir Singh and Ami Lal. This witness has proved Exhibit PW1\/1<\/p>\n
MLR of Bir Singh and Exhibit PW1\/2 MLR of Ami Lal. This
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
witness has not stated that injuries on the person of Ami Lal were<\/p>\n
grievous in nature. So, it has been submitted that petitioners have<\/p>\n
been wrongly convicted under Section 325 IPC. To support his<\/p>\n
contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon<\/p>\n
authority in case Gurmit Singh Versus Union Territory of<\/p>\n
Chandigarh, 1985(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 341. In the said case, the<\/p>\n
doctor did not state that there was fracture nor did he give the<\/p>\n
extent of cut. So, the conviction of the accused, in that case was<\/p>\n
changed from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC after relying<\/p>\n
upon authority reported in AIR 1980 S.C.106.<\/p>\n
           The State counsel assisted by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
complainant supported the judgments of both the Courts below and<\/p>\n
has submitted that both the Courts below have rightly relied upon<\/p>\n
the X-ray report on the file.\n<\/p>\n
           I have carefully considered the rival submissions made<\/p>\n
by both the sides and have gone through the record of the case.<\/p>\n
           The arguments advanced by the revisionists carry<\/p>\n
weight and have to be accepted. Mere fact that there is X-ray report<\/p>\n
on the file is not sufficient to prove that injury on the person of<\/p>\n
Ami Lal was grievous. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. R.<\/p>\n
S. Gupta, Medical Officer who has proved the medico-legal reports
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
of both the injured but has not uttered a single word that any of the<\/p>\n
injuries on the person of Ami Lal was grievous in nature. Mere<\/p>\n
production of X-ray report is not sufficient. In authority in case<\/p>\n
Gurmit Singh (supra), even the doctor has declared the injury as<\/p>\n
grievous but has not stated about the fracture. In that case, it was<\/p>\n
held that the injury cannot be said to be grievous. The present case<\/p>\n
is on better footing than that case. In the present case, only one<\/p>\n
doctor has been examined who has not stated that the injury on the<\/p>\n
person of Ami Lal was grievous. The X-ray report cannot be said<\/p>\n
to be perse admissible as observed by the trial Court. So, keeping<\/p>\n
in view the above circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners<\/p>\n
under Section 325 IPC cannot be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
           However, there is sufficient evidence on the file to<\/p>\n
conclude the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in<\/p>\n
respect of Sections 323 and 324 IPC. So, the conviction of the<\/p>\n
petitioners recorded under Sections 323 and 324 IPC by the Courts<\/p>\n
below is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
           On the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners has submitted that the occurrence relates to the year<\/p>\n
1990 and the petitioners are undergoing the agony of protracted<\/p>\n
trial for the last 18 years. The petitioners have already undergone
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
incarceration for a period of one month after their conviction was<\/p>\n
up-held by the Appellate Court. The petitioners are on bail since<\/p>\n
2001. This Court in authority in case Ram Murti Versus State of<\/p>\n
Haryana, 1994(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 33 reduced the sentence to<\/p>\n
already undergone (3 weeks) and the accused was released on<\/p>\n
probation for offences under Sections 325, 323, 148,149 IPC. In<\/p>\n
the said case, the accused faced agony of trial for 7-1\/2 years.<\/p>\n
           I have considered the said submission and have gone<\/p>\n
through the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           The conviction of petitioners under Section 325 IPC<\/p>\n
cannot be maintained, as mentioned above. So, the accused stands<\/p>\n
under Section 325 IPC. The accused remained in custody for a<\/p>\n
period of one month after their conviction was up-held by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court. The accused are facing trial since 1990 i.e for the<\/p>\n
last more than 18 years. They are on bail since 28.2.2001. Much<\/p>\n
water has flown during the period of 7-1\/2 years. There is nothing<\/p>\n
on the file that the petitioners are previous convicts or had<\/p>\n
indulged in any criminal offence during the long span of 18 years.<\/p>\n
So, taking into account the entire circumstances, the sentence of<\/p>\n
the accused under Sections 323 and 324 IPC stands reduced to the<\/p>\n
one already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine in
\n           Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
                    -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
respect of each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000\/- , for offence<\/p>\n
under Section 324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the<\/p>\n
petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.<\/p>\n
On realization of fine, Rs.5,000\/- shall paid to each of the injured,<\/p>\n
as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
           This Criminal Revision stands disposed of in the<\/p>\n
manner, indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
           A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial<\/p>\n
Court for strict compliance.<\/p>\n
\n\nSeptember 26th     ,2008.             ( K. C. Puri )\nJaggi                                       Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.154 of 2001. Date of decision:26\/8\/2008 Ratti Ram and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana. …Respondent. … Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. […]<\/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-226578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRatti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-25T16:47:13+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T16:47:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"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\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T16:47:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-25T16:47:13+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T16:47:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":1788,"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\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008","name":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T16:47:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratti-ram-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ratti Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/226578","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=226578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226578\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}