{"id":245316,"date":"2008-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-17T06:38:15","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T01:08:15","slug":"kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       1\n\n\nIN   THE    HIGH     COURT OF PUNJAB            AND      HARYANA       AT\n                       CHANDIGARH.\n\n                            Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005\n\n                            Date of Decision: December 19, 2008\n\n\nKulbir Singh                                   .......Appellant\n\n                   Versus\n\nState of Haryana                               .......Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. S. GAREWAL\n        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN\n\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for appellant Kulbir Singh\n            (in Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005) & for appellants No.1 to 3\n            (in Crl.Appeal No.576-DB of 2005).\n\n            Mr.Narinder Hooda, Advocate for appellant No.2-Ishwar Singh\n            (in Crl.Appeal No.576-DB of 2005).\n\n            Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.\n\n\n                              ---\n\nJITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.          This judgment shall dispose of two Criminal Appeals bearing<\/p>\n
Nos. 545-DB of 2005 and 576-DB of 2005 as these have arisen out of the<\/p>\n
same judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.          On 6.6.2003, accused Raj Singh, Kulbir Singh, Anil, Tharmos<\/p>\n
and Ishwar Singh were charged for the offences punishable under Sections<\/p>\n
148, 323, 302 325, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani.<\/p>\n
3.          On application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
Procedure, accused Partap Singh, Mubarik Singh, Smt. Birma Devi, Balwan<\/p>\n
and Jasbir Singh were also summoned and charged for the same offences.<\/p>\n
All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
4.          The trial Court noticed the facts of the present case in para no.<\/p>\n
1 of the judgment dated 12.7.2005, which are as under:<\/p>\n
                         “Prosecution case is that on 4.2.03 ASI Miya Singh
\n            PW9 with HC Anil Kumar and EHC Jagbir Singh on receiving
\n            a telephonic message in Police Station Sadar Bhiwani,
\n            regarding a quarrel in village Kaluwas and that injured persons
\n            were taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani, reached the hospital.
\n            ASI Miya Singh collected medical Ruqas Exts. PQ and PR
\n            from the attending doctor M.K.Garg PW5.            Medical Ruqa
\n            Ex.PQ was regarding admission of injured Rohtas PW8 and his
\n            wife Smt.Birma Devi (given up as unnecessary). Medical Ruqa
\n            Ex.PR was regarding bringing Pawan Kumar (since deceased)
\n            by his son Anil Kumar PW7. On his applications Exts.PM and
\n            PN, Dr.M.K.Garg PW5 gave his opinions Exts.PM\/1 and PN\/1
\n            that injured Rohtas and Birma Devi, respectively, were unfit to
\n            give their statements. ASI Miya Singh then met Anil Kumar
\n            PW7 son of Pawan Kumar deceased, at the outer gate of the
\n            hospital where at about 7.10 PM ASI Miya Singh recorded his
\n            statement Ex.PU. It is to the effect that he is resident of village
\n            Kaluwas. He is working as driver in a private bus. He was
\n            eldest among three brothers. Pawan Kumar deceased and Sajya
\n            were younger to him. Both were in Army. Pawan Kumar
\n            (since deceased) had come from Army on 5.1.03 on leave of
\n            one month. On that day, dated 4.2.03, at about 4.30 PM when
\n            he came to his house after his duty, he saw that accused Partap
\n            armed with Jaili, Mubarik Singh, Raj Singh, Tharmosh, Ishwar
\n            and Balwan armed with Lathis, Kulbir armed with hockey, Anil
\n            and Jasbir armed with kulharas and accused Birma Devi armed
\n            with Dang were giving injuries to his brother Pawan Kumar,
\n            mother Birma Devi and father Rohtas PW8 after entering into
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
           his house, with their respective weapons, after sharing their
\n           common intention. They were saying that they be finished on
\n           that date to teach them a lesson for putting earth and stones in
\n           the street. His parents and brother were raising hue and cry.
\n           Meanwhile on hearing the noise his cousins Ashok son of Deep
\n           Chand and Sunil son of Banarsi (both of them were also given
\n           up as unnecessary) reached there. All of them also raised hue
\n           and cries whereupon all the accused persons ran away with
\n           their respective weapons. Motive for the crime was that house
\n           of accused Ishwar is in front of their house. There is a ‘Kacha’
\n           street in between their house.     Usually water collect in it.
\n           Accused Ishwar has put sufficient earth in front of his house,
\n           but whenever they try to put earth, then the accused persons
\n           abuse them. On that day, his brother and his parents were
\n           assaulted on this score. When the accused persons had run
\n           away, then he along with his cousins viz: Ashok and Sunil,
\n           brought injured Pawan Kumar, Rohtas and Birma Devi in the
\n           hospital where they were admitted, but Pawan Kumar
\n           succumbed to his injuries. Rohtas and Smt.Birma Devi were
\n           still under medical treatment. When he was going to inform the
\n           police, he met them there; hence, this report.”<\/p>\n
5.         Ashok and Sunil moved the injured Pawan Kumar, Rohtas and<\/p>\n
Birma Devi to the hospital. Pawan Kumar succumbed to his injuries.<\/p>\n
6.         On receipt of information regarding the incident, ASI Miya<\/p>\n
Singh reached the hospital and collected medical ruqas Exhibits PQ and PR<\/p>\n
from Dr.M.K.Garg. He recorded the statement of Anil Kumar son of the<\/p>\n
deceased, on the basis of which, formal FIR was registered by PW-11, SI<\/p>\n
Ajaib Singh. The special report reached to the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.15<\/p>\n
p.m.\n<\/p>\n
7.         PW-11, SI\/SHO Ajaib Singh reached the General Hospital,<\/p>\n
Bhiwani and conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of Pawan
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar. The statements of the eye witnesses Ashok and Sunil were recorded.<\/p>\n
The place of occurrence was visited by SI Ajaib Singh on 5.2.2003. The<\/p>\n
site plan was prepared and the blood stained earth was lifted from the spot.<\/p>\n
8.          PW-4 Dr.K.K.Girdhar conducted the post-mortem examination<\/p>\n
on the dead body of Pawan Kumar on 5.2.2003 at 9.30 a.m. The doctor<\/p>\n
noticed the following injuries on the dead body:-\n<\/p>\n
            1. Swelling with bluish contusion of 3×3 cms present lateral to
\n               left eye brow and front of left ear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Swelling of 3×4 cms with bluish contusion present lateral to
\n               right eye brow and front of right ear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. A swelling of 2×2 cms present on occipital area of scalp.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   On dissection, clotted blood was found             present
\n            underneath the skin and on skull bone. There were multiple
\n            fractures on skull bones, specifically, in frontal and parietal
\n            bones. On further dissection, there were extradural haemotoma
\n            of 4×4 cms in frontal region and 2×1.5 cms in occipital region.
\n            On further dissection, there were subdural haemotoma of 3×3
\n            cms and 1.5 and 1.5 cms in frontal and occipital areas. About
\n            100 cc of fluid and clotted blood was found on the basis of the
\n            skull. Stomach was found containing semi-digested food.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death of Pawan
\n            Kumar was injuries to brain which were ante-mortem and
\n            sufficient to cause death in natural course of time and events.
\n            Probable time duration in between the injuries and death was
\n            within a few minutes and between death and post-mortem 24
\n            hours.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.          PW-5, Dr. M.K.Garg, on 4.2.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., medico<\/p>\n
legally examined Rohtas (PW8) and noted the the following injuries:<\/p>\n
            1. Lacerated wound of 3 x .5 cm on right side of scalp in frontal
\n               area. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Swelling of 4 x 5 cms. on left fore-arm and tenderness was
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
               present. Advised x-ray and Ortho. Surgeon opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. Swelling of 4 x 2 cms on back of left wrist. Advised x-ray
\n               and Ortho. Surgeon opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4. Swelling of 4 x 2 cms on back of left hand. Advised x-ray
\n               and Ortho. Surgeon opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5. Abrasion of 1 x 1 cm on back of right hand and swelling of
\n               right hand. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6. Contusion of 8 x 2 cms on left side of back on dorsal area.
\n               Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             7. Contusion of 6 x 2 cms on right side of back. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8. Contusion of 6 x 4 cms on left side of back on lumber area.
\n               Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             9. Contusion of 4 x 2 cms on right shoulder. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             10.Contusion of 6 x 4 cms on left shoulder. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.          On the same day, PW-5, Dr. M.K.Garg at about 6.00 p.m.<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined Birma Devi wife of Rohtas and noticed the<\/p>\n
following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
             1. Lacerated wound of 1.5 x .5 cm on left side of nose.
\n               Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. Lacerated wound of 1.5 x .5 cm on left lower eye lid.
\n               Advised Eye Surgeon opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. Swelling of 2 x 2cms on left side of fore-head. Advised x-
\n               ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4. Contusion of 4 x 2 cms on right side of back on dorsal
\n               lumber area. Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5. Contusion of 5 x 2 cms on right side of back on lumber area.
\n               Advised x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6. Contusion of 4 x 2 cms on lateral side of right arm. Advised
\n               x-ray.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.          As per the report of Dr. Anil Sharma (PW-1), Radiologist,<\/p>\n
fracture of the left radius and fractures of the first and fifth mata-carpal bone<\/p>\n
of left hand of injured Rohtas was noticed. No fracture was noticed in the
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
report of Radiologist on the person of Birma Devi.\n<\/p>\n
12.         On the basis of the report of Dr.M.K.Garg (PW-5), injury Nos.<\/p>\n
2 and 4 on the person of Rohtas (PW-8) were declared grievous in nature<\/p>\n
and accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code was added.\n<\/p>\n
13.         One Dadar Singh produced all the accused persons except<\/p>\n
Birma Devi before SI Ajaib Singh (PW-11), on 13.2.2003 when he had<\/p>\n
gone to village Kaluwas. They were taken into custody.<\/p>\n
14.         On the basis of disclosure statements, Exhibits PV\/1 to PV\/7 of<\/p>\n
the accused Raj Singh, Anil, Kulbir Singh, Ishwar Singh, Partap Singh,<\/p>\n
Balwan Singh, Jasbir and Mubarak respectively; lathi Exhibit P27, kulhari<\/p>\n
Exhibit P28, hockey Exhibit P29, lathi Exhibit P30, jelly Exhibit P31, lathi<\/p>\n
Exhibit P32, Kulhari Exhibit P33 and lathi Exhibit P34 were recovered from<\/p>\n
their respective houses. These recoveries were witnessed and attested by the<\/p>\n
complainant Anil Kumar (PW-7) and Dharmender son of Surja Ram .<\/p>\n
15.         Accused Birma Devi was arrested on 15.2.2003. On the basis of<\/p>\n
her disclosure statement, Exhibit PV\/8, SI Ajaib Singh PW-11 recovered a<\/p>\n
danda. The recovery was witnessed and attested by complainant Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
and Constable Ram Parkash.\n<\/p>\n
16.         Dr. K.K.Girdhar (PW-4), after examining the said recovered<\/p>\n
weapons gave his opinion, Exhibit PJ, that possibility of receiving injuries,<\/p>\n
on the person of Pawan Kumar, deceased with said hockey, kulharis from<\/p>\n
blunt sides, could not be ruled out. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory<\/p>\n
report, human blood was found upon        one lathi. Blood stains on other<\/p>\n
weapons had disintegrated.\n<\/p>\n
17.         The matter was also investigated by DSP Samunder Singh (not
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
examined) and Inspector Hoshiar Singh (DW-1). As per the report, accused<\/p>\n
Partap Singh, Mubark Singh, Balwan Singh and Jasbir were shown at<\/p>\n
Panchayat Bhawan in connection with distribution of drought relief and<\/p>\n
accused Birma Devi had gone to         well to fetch water. Accordingly, no<\/p>\n
incriminating evidence was found against these five persons.<\/p>\n
18.           In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined Dr.Anil<\/p>\n
Sharma as PW1, Constable Bhoop Singh as PW2, Constable Subhash<\/p>\n
Chander as PW3, Dr.K.K.Girdhar as PW4, Dr.M.K.Garg as PW5, HC<\/p>\n
Jagdish Chander as PW6, Anil Kumar as PW7, Rohtas Singh as PW8, ASI<\/p>\n
Miya Singh as PW9, Satyabir Singh as PW10 and SI Ajaib Singh as PW11.<\/p>\n
19.          The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure denied the circumstances appearing against them in<\/p>\n
evidence and pleaded innocence. The five accused, who were sent for trial,<\/p>\n
pleaded that accused Raj Singh was removing mud from the bricks in the<\/p>\n
street, as a result of which water started flowing in the street in front of the<\/p>\n
house of Anil Kumar (PW-7).          On that account Pawan Kumar (since<\/p>\n
deceased) and his parents attacked Raj Singh and caused injuries and no<\/p>\n
other accused except Raj Singh was present at that time. Inspector, Hoshiar<\/p>\n
Singh and Draftsman, Dalbir Singh were examined as DW-1 and DW-2.<\/p>\n
20.          Dr. Anil Sharma, Radiologist (PW-1) proved the aforesaid x-<\/p>\n
ray report regarding fractures on the persons of PW-8, Rohtas Singh and<\/p>\n
injured Birma Devi. The trial Court noticed that this evidence corroborates<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW-5, Dr. M.K.Garg to prove the nature of injuries no. 2<\/p>\n
and 4 on the person of Rohtas as grievous.\n<\/p>\n
21.          As regards the delay pertaining to the delivery of report to the<\/p>\n
Illaqa Magistrate and evidence regarding transit of the property from MHC
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, the trial Court recorded that the<\/p>\n
special report was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.50 p.m. It was<\/p>\n
handed over to the carrier at 8.50 p.m. The distance between the Police<\/p>\n
Station and the residence of Illaqa Magistrate was about 1\u00bd kms.           The<\/p>\n
occurrence took place at about 4.30 p.m. The FIR was registered at 7.40<\/p>\n
p.m. on the statement of PW-7 Anil Kumar, recorded at 7.15 p.m. On the<\/p>\n
basis of above material, the trial Court recorded that there was no delay in<\/p>\n
delivery of special report to the Illaqa Magistrate, after registration of the<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
22.         PW-4 Dr. Girdhar proved the post-mortem report Exhibit PF.<\/p>\n
This witness proved that the injuries noticed in the post-mortem report<\/p>\n
could be caused with jelly and kulhari, if used from blunt side. It was further<\/p>\n
deposed that injuries were given to the deceased with full force resulting<\/p>\n
into multiple fractures of the skull which caused death. The three injuries<\/p>\n
on the person of the deceased noticed by the doctor had been attributed to<\/p>\n
the accused Anil, Kulbir and Ishwar as per statement of Rohtas, PW-8. On<\/p>\n
the basis of this statement, it was further corroborated that the injured<\/p>\n
witnesses and the deceased were brought to the hospital by Anil Kumar,<\/p>\n
PW-7 and Rohtas, PW-8, who supported the prosecution. Both these PWs<\/p>\n
were injured witnesses. PW-7 Anil Kumar, apart from being eye witness to<\/p>\n
the occurrence, was witness to the recoveries of the weapons used in the<\/p>\n
crime. ASI Miya Singh, PW-9, proved the recording of the statement<\/p>\n
Exhibit PU of Anil Kumar which was the basis of the present FIR recorded<\/p>\n
at 7.40 p.m. and the occurrence was of 4.30 p.m. afterwards. However, in<\/p>\n
cross-examination, he stated that he had received a telephonic message at<\/p>\n
1.30 p.m. and reached the hospital at 2.30 p.m. and stayed there for about
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
one hour but no one was found to disclose the occurrence. The trial Court<\/p>\n
recorded that the statement made by ASI Miya Singh, PW-9 in cross-<\/p>\n
examination was inconsistent with time and the occurrence mentioned in<\/p>\n
report Exhibit PU and observed that the statement in cross-examination was<\/p>\n
erroneous or might be made inadvertently or intentionally to unduly help<\/p>\n
the defence.\n<\/p>\n
23.            The evidence of Anil Kumar was assailed by the defence in<\/p>\n
regard to his schedule as a driver operating from Meham to Bhiwani; he had<\/p>\n
not attributed any specific injury to any of the accused persons, particularly<\/p>\n
to the deceased; he did not try to rescue his parents when they were being<\/p>\n
assaulted; his clothes were not smeared with the blood and even blood<\/p>\n
stained earth was not picked up by the police, which was otherwise a part of<\/p>\n
the record. During cross-examination, he admitted that his parents were in<\/p>\n
senses while in the hospital, whereas as per medical opinion, they were not<\/p>\n
in a fit state of mind to make statement.\n<\/p>\n
24.            The trial Court recorded that nothing specific was asked from<\/p>\n
Anil Kumar regarding the date of occurrence. It was further recorded that<\/p>\n
when as many as three persons were being assaulted by so many persons<\/p>\n
with different weapons it was not natural or probable to note specific<\/p>\n
infliction. It was also not necessary for everybody to intervene and rescue at<\/p>\n
the risk of receiving injuries especially when the place of occurrence is a<\/p>\n
small place. As regards the fact that the clothes of Anil Kumar were not<\/p>\n
smeared with blood, the trial Court observed that as per medical evidence,<\/p>\n
there was no profuse bleeding from any injuries on the person of the injured<\/p>\n
including the deceased. They were having blunt injuries. Moreover, PW-7<\/p>\n
Anil Kumar was not a witness to the lifting of the blood stained earth. As
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
regards the fitness of the parents of Anil Kumar, the trial Court recorded<\/p>\n
that remaining in senses was quite different from the fitness of mind to<\/p>\n
make statement and, therefore, it was not considered to be a material<\/p>\n
infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
25.          In an effort to prove the complainant to be an aggressor, it was<\/p>\n
stated that on removal of the bricks by accused Raj Singh water         started<\/p>\n
flowing in the street in front of the house of the PWs and complainant-party<\/p>\n
attacked Raj Singh. It was further tried to establish that except Raj Singh no<\/p>\n
one was present at the spot.\n<\/p>\n
26.          On the basis of the certain mud found on the hands of Raj<\/p>\n
Singh, an effort was made to establish that the injuries to Raj Singh were<\/p>\n
caused by Pawan Kumar. But the trial Court noticed that mud and dust<\/p>\n
particles on the hands and feet of the deceased could have been because of<\/p>\n
many other reasons, particularly when it had come in the evidence that at<\/p>\n
the relevant time he was busy in bringing fodder from gandasa room and<\/p>\n
putting it to the room meant for tethering of cattle. He also might have been<\/p>\n
working in the street to avoid stagnation of water in front of his house. On<\/p>\n
the basis of the same, it was noticed that presence of mud or dust particles<\/p>\n
on the hands of the deceased do not in any manner help the defence.<\/p>\n
Moreover, there is nothing on record to establish the fact that there was<\/p>\n
imminent danger to the life of accused Raj Singh to cause the death of<\/p>\n
Pawan Kumar or to cause injuries to other persons. In the circumstances, it<\/p>\n
was observed that it could not be said that only Raj Singh was present or he<\/p>\n
had exercised his right of private defence. On the contrary, from the number<\/p>\n
of injuries on the person of deceased and on the person of other injured<\/p>\n
witnesses, it was clear that the complainant was assaulted by number of
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
accused persons with their weapons. An effort was also made to show that<\/p>\n
the occurrence took place much prior to 4.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
27.         The presence of Anil Kumar was also corroborated from the<\/p>\n
medical evidence of MLRs and medical ruqas, wherein it was mentioned<\/p>\n
that Anil Kumar along with Rohtas brought the deceased and injured<\/p>\n
witnesses to the hospital. The evidence of this witness was also assailed on<\/p>\n
the ground of discrepancy in his version regarding attribution of weapons to<\/p>\n
various accused that there was improvement in his earlier version. The trial<\/p>\n
Court observed that recording of the statement of PW-7 Anil Kumar at 7.15<\/p>\n
p.m. inspires full confidence and there was nothing to infer or to presume<\/p>\n
that the occurrence was of much prior to 4.30 p.m. Even accused Raj Singh<\/p>\n
had not raised any objection in this regard who raised the plea of self<\/p>\n
defence. It is evident from the injuries that the condition of deceased and<\/p>\n
other injured witnesses was serious. Therefore, the first concern was to<\/p>\n
provide medical help and in the circumstances, the trial Court observed that<\/p>\n
it could not be said that there was any delay in reporting the matter to the<\/p>\n
police or the FIR was the result of any deliberation or consultation.<\/p>\n
28.         The dispute regarding the exact place of occurrence was also<\/p>\n
raised. The trial Court observed that it was of no consequence whether the<\/p>\n
occurrence took place inside the kotha or outside in the street as the cattle<\/p>\n
kotha opened in the street, other opening of the kotha was in the house of<\/p>\n
PWs. The occurrence admittedly took place in the street in between the<\/p>\n
houses of the two parties. The deceased was assaulted by the accused when<\/p>\n
he was empty handed with common motive. From the evidence, it was also<\/p>\n
established that accused Kulbir, Ishwar and Anil were ahead of          other<\/p>\n
accused persons and they gave injuries to Pawan Kumar.
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
29.         After considering the evidence and relevant material, the trial<\/p>\n
Court held that the prosecution had fully established its case beyond any<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt only against the accused Anil, Kulbir, Ishwar and<\/p>\n
Tharmos. The prosecution failed to prove its case against other accused<\/p>\n
persons, namely, Birma Devi, Partap, Mubarak, Balwan, Jasbir and Raj<\/p>\n
Singh beyond reasonable doubts. Consequently, by giving benefit of doubt,<\/p>\n
they were acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
30.         Against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge (II), Bhiwani, Criminal Appeal No. 545-DB of<\/p>\n
2005 on behalf of Kulbir Singh and Crl.Appeal No. 576-DB of 2005 on<\/p>\n
behalf of remaining three accused were preferred. Crl. Appeal No. 545-DB<\/p>\n
of 2005 was admitted on 8.8.2005 and Cri. Appeal No. 576- DB of 2005<\/p>\n
was admitted on 18.8.2005.\n<\/p>\n
31.         On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that evidence led by<\/p>\n
the prosecution was vague and the prosecution failed to prove and establish<\/p>\n
even the correct time of occurrence. As per FIR, the time of occurrence was<\/p>\n
4.30 p.m., whereas PW-9, ASI Miya Singh, in his cross examination stated<\/p>\n
that he had received a telephonic message about the incident at about 1.30<\/p>\n
p.m. ASI Miya Singh reached the hospital at 2.30 p.m. and there was no one<\/p>\n
available in the hospital who could disclose anything about the occurrence.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel contends that the trial Court wrongly discarded this<\/p>\n
material evidence. The occurrence had taken place much prior to the time<\/p>\n
mentioned in the FIR and this time was consumed in consultation and<\/p>\n
deliberation to falsely implicate the persons of the choice of the complainant<\/p>\n
party.\n<\/p>\n
32.         It was further argued that the place of occurrence had also not
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
been proved. As per the prosecution version, the occurrence took place in
\nthe cattle kotha and blood stained earth was lifted from there, whereas the
\neye witness Anil Kumar stated that blood was not lifted by the police.
\nFurther as per the report of the doctor, the hands and feet of the deceased
\nwere found smeared with dust and mud, which establishes that occurrence
\ntook place outside the kotha. Even in the complaint, no specific injury had
\nbeen attributed to the appellants.       The statement of PW-8 Rohtas was
\nrecorded at much later stage, when the injuries on the person of the
\ndeceased had been described by the doctor.            Appellant Kulbir was
\nattributed hockey injury to match the injuries on Pawan (since deceased) so
\nas to falsely implicate the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned State counsel submits that the occurrence took place
\nat 4.30 p.m. Both the injured were brought to the hospital by Anil Kumar,
\nPW7, which fact is fully proved from the cross-examination of PW7. FIR
\nwas promptly recorded. Anil Kumar, PW7 named all the accused along
\nwith weapons which is corroborated from the statement of Rohtas, PW8.
\nMoreover, the injuries suffered by the deceased could not be received on
\naccount of fall. Accused Kulbir was put specific question under Section
\n313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding his presence. All the
\naccused were present and had a motive to eliminate the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
33.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
\nthe record.\n<\/p>\n
34.           As per the prosecution case, the occurrence took place at about
\n4.30 p.m.on 4.2.2003. The FIR was recorded at about 7.40 p.m. on 4.2.2003
\non the statement made by complainant, Anil Kumar.No specific injury to the
\ndeceased Pawan Kumar or to injured Rohtas Singh son of Chandgi Ram and
\nBirma Devi wife of Rohtas Singh has been attributed to any of the accused-
\nappellants. Complainant, Anil Kumar appeared as PW-7 on 15.3.2005 and
\nadmitted in his cross-examination that his statement was earlier recorded in
\nthe learned Trial Court on 15.11.2003 and that it was correct that he could
\nnot specifically state as to which accused caused specific injuries to
\ndeceased, Pawan Kumar. The statement of PW-8, Rohtas Singh, attributing
\nspecific injuries to the deceased having been allegedly caused by accused-
\nappellants Anil, Kulbir and Ishwar requires close scrutiny.
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
35.          As per the record, Rohtas Singh-injured, PW-8, was fit and<\/p>\n
fully oriented to make statement. The statement of Rohtas Singh under<\/p>\n
Section 161 was recorded on 5.2.2003 at 9.30 A.M. after the post-mortem. It<\/p>\n
appears that the same was so done to synchronise oral evidence with the<\/p>\n
medical record.     In this context, a perusal of Exhibit PM deserves<\/p>\n
consideration as also no time has been mentioned regarding the opinion of<\/p>\n
the doctor that Rohtas Singh was not fit to make statement, whereas the<\/p>\n
subsequent report of his fitness is shown to have been made at 10.50 a.m.<\/p>\n
on 5.5.2003. Thus, it costs aspersion upon the investigating agency for not<\/p>\n
being very diligent in preparation of record and, therefore, cannot be said to<\/p>\n
be fully fair and trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
36.          After the occurrence at about 4.30 p.m., on 4.2.2003, the<\/p>\n
injured were shifted to the hospital after half an hour as admitted by Anil<\/p>\n
Kumar, complainant PW-7.         As per the statement of this witness, his<\/p>\n
parents-Rohtas Singh PW-8 and Smt. Birma Devi were in senses and fully<\/p>\n
oriented after receiving the injuries while in hospital. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
it appears to be highly unlikely and improbable that in case Rohtas Singh<\/p>\n
(PW-8) had known as to which accused had caused specific injury to Pawan<\/p>\n
Kumar (deceased), he would not disclose it to his son-complainant, Anil<\/p>\n
Kumar particularly when as per the statement of Anil Kumar, the<\/p>\n
complainant, there is no specific attribution of injuries to any of the accused<\/p>\n
either in the FIR or in his statement recorded by learned trial Court on<\/p>\n
15.11.2003. This goes to establish that attribution of specific injuries to the<\/p>\n
accused-appellants on the person of the deceased is not truthful and worthy<\/p>\n
of complete credence. Therefore, the case of appellant Kulbir cannot be<\/p>\n
segregated from that of co-accused who stand acquitted by the trial Court,
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
merely because appellant, Kulbir Singh has been attributed specific injury.<\/p>\n
37.           The occurrence took place on account of dispute between the<\/p>\n
families of Rohtas Singh son of Chandgi Ram and Ishwar Singh son of<\/p>\n
Dalpat Singh on account of throwing of mud in the common street between<\/p>\n
the houses of the aforesaid parties. Accused-appellants-Anil and Tharmos<\/p>\n
are sons of abovesaid Ishwar Singh son of Dalpat Singh. The site plan,<\/p>\n
Exhibit DA, shows that the houses of the aforementioned Rohtas and Ishwar<\/p>\n
are opposite to each other, whereas the house of appellant Kulbir Singh son<\/p>\n
of Attar Singh is far away from the houses of Ishwar and Rohtas, in another<\/p>\n
street. As per record, the appellants Ishwar son of Dalpat and Kulbir son of<\/p>\n
Attar are related only through a common ancestor in the third generation.<\/p>\n
They are also not shown to have any common interest and are separate from<\/p>\n
each other.\n<\/p>\n
38.           Keeping in view the nature of the alleged dispute between<\/p>\n
Rohtas and Ishwar, motive for commission of offence could only be<\/p>\n
attributed to appellant Ishwar son of Dalpat and his two sons-appellants i.e.<\/p>\n
Anil and Tharmos (all the three are appellants in Criminal Appeal No.576-<\/p>\n
DB of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
39.           There appears to be no motive on the part of appellant Kulbir to<\/p>\n
indulge in the alleged fight and his involvement in the present case is highly<\/p>\n
doubtful. Even otherwise, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case reflects the tendency of the prosecution to throw too wide a net to<\/p>\n
implicate all the family members and relatives of the opposite          party.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the prosecution case cannot, thus,be relied upon, in its entirety.<\/p>\n
40.           As per the prosecution case, ten persons were named as<\/p>\n
accused, out of which six persons were acquitted by the trial Court. The
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
grounds of acquittal of the said six co-accused also apply to the case of the<\/p>\n
appellant Kulbir, who appears to have been roped in on account of his<\/p>\n
relationship with the main accused and to harm his career as a Constable in<\/p>\n
the Border Security Force. As in the case of six acquitted co-accused, the<\/p>\n
house of the appellant Kulbir is also at a different place and not in the same<\/p>\n
street where houses of Rohtas (complainant) and Ishwar (main accused-<\/p>\n
appellant) are situated. The only distinguishing feature being the attribution<\/p>\n
of specific injury to appellant Kulbir on the person of Pawan cannot be<\/p>\n
given much credence inasmuch as the specific attribution of injury has been<\/p>\n
made at a highly belated stage and apparently appears to be an afterthought.<\/p>\n
41.          Apart from this, the nature of injuries sustained by deceased<\/p>\n
Pawan Kumar, in the context of the medical evidence on record of the case,<\/p>\n
shows that all the injuries could be caused by one person also and with the<\/p>\n
same weapon. Dr. K.K.Girdhar (PW-4) also admitted that injuries no. 1 and<\/p>\n
2 on the person of deceased Pawan Kumar could be possibly by multiple<\/p>\n
falls on the hard surface. It creates strong possibility of appellant Kulbir<\/p>\n
Singh having been falsely implicated and his involvement in the offence is<\/p>\n
highly doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
42.          The recovery of hockey in pursuance of disclosure statement of<\/p>\n
the appellant Kulbir Singh cannot be accorded much credence as observed<\/p>\n
by the trial court that recoveries of different weapons from different accused<\/p>\n
persons do not inspire confidence. Consequently, there is no incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstance against appellant Kulbir Singh which may prove his guilt<\/p>\n
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.          Appellant Kulbir Singh is,<\/p>\n
therefore, entitled to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
43.          During the examination under Section 313 of the Code of
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       17<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, the appellant Kulbir Singh has not been asked to<\/p>\n
explain that as per prosecution evidence, he had caused injury on the head<\/p>\n
of deceased Pawan with hockey. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 348<\/p>\n
held as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “12. The word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit
\n            the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a
\n            general nature relating to the case, but it means that the
\n            question should relate to the whole case generally and should
\n            also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question
\n            must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know
\n            what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are
\n            against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole
\n            object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper
\n            opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against
\n            him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in
\n            a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to
\n            appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused’s
\n            failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in
\n            law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was
\n            that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific
\n            points in the charge and in the evidence on which the
\n            prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused
\n            so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to
\n            give.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
44.         In Lattu Math & another v. The State of Bihar, 2008 (3)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 467 also, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:<\/p>\n
            “18. What is the object of examination of an accused under
\n            Section 313 of the Code ? The section itself declares the object
\n            in explicit language that it is “for the purpose of enabling the
\n            accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in
\n            the evidence against him”. In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab (AIR
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of<\/span><\/a> 2005                                       18<\/p>\n
            1963 SC 612) Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for
\n            a three-Judge Bench has focussed on the ultimate test in
\n            determining whether the provision has been fairly complied
\n            with. He observed thus :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   “The ultimate test in determining whether or not the
\n                   accused has been fairly examined under Section 342
\n                   would be to inquire whether, having regard to all the
\n                   questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say
\n                   what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case
\n                   against him. If it appears that the examination of the
\n                   accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has
\n                   been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious
\n                   infirmity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            20. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the
\n            provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to
\n            comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice
\n            enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word “may”
\n            in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code
\n            indicates, without any doubt, that even if the court does not put
\n            any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any
\n            grievance for it. But if the court fails to put the needed question
\n            under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap
\n            to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence,
\n            without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used
\n            against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about
\n            which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used
\n            against him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
45.         In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 12.7.2005<\/p>\n
passed by the learned trial Court qua appellant Kulbir Singh is hereby set<\/p>\n
aside and his appeal is accepted.\n<\/p>\n
46.         As regards the case against the appellants, Ishwar Singh son of<\/p>\n
Dalpat Singh, Anil and Tharmos sons of Ishwar Singh is concerned, the
\n Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution has been successful in proving their involvement in the<\/p>\n
commission of offence beyond all shadow of doubt. The occurrence took<\/p>\n
place between Ishwar Singh and Rohtas Singh on account of putting of<\/p>\n
mud in the common street between their houses in order to divert the flow<\/p>\n
of water. The other accused, besides aforesaid Ishwar Singh, Anil and<\/p>\n
Tharmos had no interest in the subject matter of the dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties and the motive lay only with the appellants Ishwar Singh, Anil and<\/p>\n
Tharmos to cause injuries resulting in the death of Pawan Kumar.<\/p>\n
47.         In view of the entirety of the facts and evidence on record of<\/p>\n
the case, the guilt of appellants Ishwar Singh, Anil and Tharmos stands<\/p>\n
established and resultantly, their appeal stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                            ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
\n                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                ( K. S. GAREWAL )
\n                                                      JUDGE
\nDecember 19, 2008
\nmk\/SRM<\/p>\n
Note:       Whether to be referred to reporter ?         Yes\/No\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008 Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.545-DB of 2005 Date of Decision: December 19, 2008 Kulbir Singh …….Appellant Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. S. GAREWAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA […]<\/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-245316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 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\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-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=\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-17T01:08:15+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T01:08:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5564,\"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\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-17T01:08:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 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\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-17T01:08:15+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T01:08:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008"},"wordCount":5564,"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\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008","name":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-17T01:08:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kulbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245316","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=245316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}