{"id":254107,"date":"2009-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-24T01:33:32","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T20:03:32","slug":"state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009<\/div>\n
CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                             -1-\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH             COURT      OF   PUNJAB   AND     HARYANA        AT\nCHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n            DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009.\n\n                    Parties Name\n\nState of Haryana\n                                        ..APPLICANT\n      VERSUS\n\nJaipal and others\n                                        ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n            HON'BLE JUSTICE MRS. DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr. Naveen Malik, Addl. A.G., Haryana\n         for the applicant.\n\n\nJASBIR SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
ORDER.\n<\/p>\n
            The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section<\/p>\n
378(3)<\/a> Cr.P.C. against     judgment dated May 20, 2009, acquitting the<\/p>\n
respondents of the charges framed against them. It was allegation against<\/p>\n
them that on October 31, 2005, at 11.47 AM, they had caused injuries to<\/p>\n
Kalli Ram, Nehru, Devi Lal (PW10), Satbir, Krishan Kumar and Kamla<\/p>\n
wife of Nehru of the complainant party.\n<\/p>\n
            Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court in para No.<\/p>\n
2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
            “Devi Lal, complainant, is an agriculturist, who are four<\/p>\n
            brothers.    Out of them, one brother, namely, Balu Ram is
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
         residing in village Shahidawali while Devi Lal complainant,<\/p>\n
         Kalli Ram and Nehru are residing in village Manawali in their<\/p>\n
         Dhani, situated in the village. Bahadur Ram son of Jai Kishan<\/p>\n
         and Lekh Ram son of Sharwan were having land dispute which<\/p>\n
         was going on since long between them and a civil suit was<\/p>\n
         pending in the Court of Miss Ritu Y.K.Bahl, the then<\/p>\n
         Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Fatehabad. The Panchayat<\/p>\n
         had settled the dispute orally by way of asking both the parties<\/p>\n
         not to irrigate the disputed land. On 31.10.2005, Lekh Ram<\/p>\n
         and Bahadur were having their turn of water. At 11.47 AM,<\/p>\n
         Lekh Ram had taken his turn of water. At about 1 p.m., Lekh<\/p>\n
         Ram and his sons Chander Pal, Jaipal, Raja Ram and Rohtash<\/p>\n
         started taking the water after making a cut in the canal upon<\/p>\n
         which Krishan son of Bahadur, resident of village Manawali<\/p>\n
         asked them not to do so but Lekh Ram and his sons did not pay<\/p>\n
         any heed to him.     Nehru and Kalli Ram, who are the real<\/p>\n
         brothers of Devi Lal also came there but in the meantime, Lekh<\/p>\n
         Ram gave a Lalkara to the persons who were already hidden by<\/p>\n
         him in the cotton field that they will teach a lesson to them to<\/p>\n
         restraining them from taking the water upon which Bhup Singh<\/p>\n
         son of Amar Singh, Rameshwar son of Ram Sawrup, Sube<\/p>\n
         Singh son of Krishan, Mahabir son of Ramji Lal, Ranbir Singh<\/p>\n
         son of Ramji Lal, Jaipal son of Lekh Ram, Kalu Ram son of<\/p>\n
         Amar Singh having Gandasi, Kapa, Bhala and rifle came out of<\/p>\n
         the field and started inflicting injuries upon the persons of Kali<\/p>\n
         Ram and Nehru with the help of respective weapons in their
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
         hands while Jaipal son of Lekh Ram and Kalu Ram son of<\/p>\n
         Amar Singh fired the shots in the air with the help of rifles in<\/p>\n
         their hands. Chander Pal son of Lekh Ram, Ram Niwas son of<\/p>\n
         Chander Pal, Mahabir son of Kishan Lal, Kalu son of Kishan<\/p>\n
         Lal, Kuldeep son of Mahabir, Sube Singh son of Kishan Lal,<\/p>\n
         Kishan Lal son of Sharwan, Raja Ram son of Amar Singh,<\/p>\n
         Lekh Ram son of Sharwan, Kishan Lal son of Sharwan, Amar<\/p>\n
         Singh son of Sharwan, Mahabir son of Kishan Lal, Satpal son<\/p>\n
         of Ranbir, caste Gujar, residents of village Manwali also<\/p>\n
         inflicted injuries upon the persons of Kamla Devi wife of<\/p>\n
         Nehru, Krishn son of Bahadur and Satbir son of Balu Ram,<\/p>\n
         while Bhup Singh son of Amar Singh, Raja Ram son of Lekh<\/p>\n
         Ram, Satbir son of Lilu Ram inflicted injuries upon the various<\/p>\n
         parts of the body of Devi Lal, complainant, with the help of<\/p>\n
         Talwar, Gandasi and Lathi blows, as a result of which, Devi<\/p>\n
         Lal, complainant became unconscious, who fell down on the<\/p>\n
         ground. Balu Ram brother of Devi Lal, complainant, and Umed<\/p>\n
         Singh son of Prabhu Ram, resident of village Manwali after<\/p>\n
         hearing the noise of the quarrel came there and upon seeing<\/p>\n
         them, all the accused ran away from the spot with their<\/p>\n
         weapons throwing threats that they have saved themselves<\/p>\n
         today and that they will kill them in future. Balu Ram and<\/p>\n
         Kuldeep took the injured namely Nehru and Kalli Ram to the<\/p>\n
         hospital at Hisar after which report Ex. P1 was lodged by Devi<\/p>\n
         Lal, complainant, with the police on the basis of which FIR Ex.<\/p>\n
         P2 was registered against the accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             On registration of an FIR, the Investigating Officer went to the<\/p>\n
spot, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. All the injured<\/p>\n
were medico-legally examined by Dr. O.P.Dehimiwal (PW10).              In the<\/p>\n
meantime, Kalli Ram died. His post mortem examination was conducted.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The respondents – accused were arrested. On their interrogation, weapons<\/p>\n
of offence were recovered, which were taken into possession against<\/p>\n
recovery memos. On completion of investigation, final report was put in<\/p>\n
Court for trial.\n<\/p>\n
             The respondents were charge-sheeted for commission of<\/p>\n
offences punishable under Sections 148<\/a>\/302<\/a>\/307<\/a>\/325<\/a>\/326<\/a> and 323<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
Section 149<\/a> IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
             The prosecution produced 19 witnesses and also brought on<\/p>\n
record documentary evidence to prove its case.           On conclusion of<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence, statements of the accused – respondents were<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, pleaded<\/p>\n
innocence and false implication. Respondents Jai Pal, Chander Pal, Rohtas,<\/p>\n
Amar Singh, Lekh Ram, Kalu Ram, Raj Kumar alias Raja Ram and Rajpal<\/p>\n
alias Raja Ram, in their statements recorded under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
stated that on October 31, 2005, when they had gone to take turn of water,<\/p>\n
they were assaulted by the complainant party. They also picked up the arms<\/p>\n
and caused injuries to the opposite party in a right of private defence. They<\/p>\n
also led evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence,<\/p>\n
believed the defence version and opined that it was a case of free fight. An<\/p>\n
attempt was made by the prosecution to suppress the genesis of the<\/p>\n
occurrence and accordingly      the     respondents     were         acquitted
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the charges framed against them. Hence this appeal.<\/p>\n
            State counsel, by making reference to the prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
on record, has vehemently contended that the impugned judgment was not<\/p>\n
justified. The prosecution has proved on record guilt of the respondents,<\/p>\n
however, they were wrongly acquitted by the trial Court.           By making<\/p>\n
reference to the medical evidence on record, he argued that causing of<\/p>\n
injuries to the complainant party by the respondents – accused was proved<\/p>\n
on record. Motive to cause injuries was also established by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
The defence version has wrongly been accepted by the trial Court. He<\/p>\n
prayed that the judgment under challenge be set aside and the respondents –<\/p>\n
accused be punished for the offences committed by them.<\/p>\n
            After hearing counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that<\/p>\n
no case is made out to interfere at the instance of the applicant in this case.<\/p>\n
The trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and that the true version<\/p>\n
was not brought to the notice of the Court. It was further observed that the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses have wrongly denied receipt of injuries by the<\/p>\n
respondents – accused and further that omission on the part of the<\/p>\n
prosecution to explain injuries on the accused was fatal to the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. This Court feels that the opinion arrived at by the trial Court is<\/p>\n
perfectly justified. It has come on record that Dr. O.P.Dehimiwal (PW10)<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined Kalli Ram and found five injuries on his person.<\/p>\n
Thereafter Kalli Ram died and during post-mortem examination, these very<\/p>\n
injuries were found at his person. Similarly, above named witness has<\/p>\n
found six injuries at the person of Nehru, ten injuries at the person of Devi<\/p>\n
Lal (PW10) and three injuries       at the person of Satbir.      On medical
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
examination of Krishan Kumar, three injuries were found at his person.<\/p>\n
Kamla received two injuries. As against this, the respondents – accused<\/p>\n
produced Dr. Mohinder Kumar as DW1, who medico-legally examined the<\/p>\n
accused party on October 31, 2005, and found two injuries on the person of<\/p>\n
Jai Pal. Lekh Raj was also found to have suffered two injuries. Similarly,<\/p>\n
Kalu Ram suffered three injuries. One injury was diagnosed at the person<\/p>\n
of Amar Singh. One injury was detected at the person of Rohtash. One<\/p>\n
injury was found on the person of Raja Ram and two injuries were found on<\/p>\n
the person of Chander Pal, all from the accused – respondents side. Injuries<\/p>\n
were found to be of the same duration like that of the complainant party.<\/p>\n
The trial Court has noted with concern that the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
give any explanation for injuries, received by the respondent side. Rather<\/p>\n
all the prosecution witnesses made an attempt to suppress true facts from the<\/p>\n
Court. By taking note of injuries on both the sides, trial Court rightly came<\/p>\n
to the conclusion that it was a case of open fight between the parties, in<\/p>\n
which members of both the factions received injuries. The Court has further<\/p>\n
rightly found that the prosecution has failed to show on record that the<\/p>\n
respondents – accused were the aggressors. The fight had commenced on<\/p>\n
use of turn of canal water. This Court is of the opinion that in view of<\/p>\n
evidence on record, the opinion formed by the trial Court is perfectly<\/p>\n
justified and is as per evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
            Even in cases, where two views are possible, ordinarily, the<\/p>\n
view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted.<\/p>\n
            Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri<\/p>\n
v. State of Gujarat<\/a>, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) page 748, held that where, in a<\/p>\n
case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be
\n CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009                              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
adopted by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
            A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa<\/p>\n
Singh<\/a>, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) page 775, while dealing with an appeal<\/p>\n
against acquittal, has opined as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be<\/p>\n
            examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
            Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan<\/a>, 1991(1)<\/p>\n
            SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against<\/p>\n
            acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal<\/p>\n
            were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and<\/p>\n
            merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a<\/p>\n
            different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            The same has happened in this case. Counsel for the applicant<\/p>\n
has failed to show any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court,<\/p>\n
which may necessitate interference in the judgment of acquittal.<\/p>\n
            Consequently, the application fails and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                              ( DAYA CHAUDHARY)
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
November 16, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
DKC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 CRIMINAL MISC. NO. 518-MA OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009. Parties Name State of Haryana ..APPLICANT VERSUS Jaipal and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE […]<\/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-254107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-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=\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T20:03:32+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\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T20:03:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1795,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T20:03:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 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:\/\/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":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T20:03:32+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\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T20:03:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009"},"wordCount":1795,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009","name":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T20:03:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-haryana-vs-jaipal-and-others-on-16-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Haryana vs Jaipal And Others on 16 November, 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:\/\/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\/254107","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=254107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}