{"id":262214,"date":"2008-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-24T22:59:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-24T17:29:56","slug":"thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                                1\n\n\n       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                       CHANDIGARH.\n\n                               Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006\n                               Date of decision: 1.12.2008\n\nThakur Mani and another\n\n                                                  ... Appellants\n                         Versus\nState of Haryana\n                                                  ... Respondent\n\nCORAM:      Hon'ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath Singh.\n            Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Daya Chaudhary.\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate,\n            for the appellants.\n\n            Ms.Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.\n            ...\n\nUMA NATH SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment dated 7.11.2005<\/p>\n
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions case<\/p>\n
No. 17 of 12.6.2004 under Sections 302<\/a>\/34<\/a>\/201<\/a> IPC, holding accused-<\/p>\n
appellants Thakur Manni and Parwati, both sisters, guilty of offences<\/p>\n
aforesaid and sentencing them each to imprisonment for life on first count<\/p>\n
and seven years rigorous imprisonment on second count with no order as to<\/p>\n
fine. As regards two other co-accused, learned trial Judge has acquitted co-<\/p>\n
accused Pawan, whereas, the fourth accused Chandervir, who was in<\/p>\n
possession of Tata Sumo used in offence, is said to be still absconding.<\/p>\n
            As per statement given by Naimai Mandal (PW-1), brother of<\/p>\n
deceased-Jait Mandal, FIR (Ex.P\/2) was recorded at Police Station NIT,<\/p>\n
Faridabad, on 7.1.2004 under Sections 302<\/a>\/201<\/a>\/34<\/a> IPC at 4.10 pm.      As per<\/p>\n
statement of complainant, deceased Jait Mandal was his elder brother. Both
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
were living separately in jhuggi of one Jeevan Jyoti of Rajiv Camp in Delhi.<\/p>\n
Jait Mandal was a labourer, who used to take liquor. Accused-Parwati, wife<\/p>\n
of deceased Jait Mandal, also used to work as labourer. This also stated that<\/p>\n
the deceased used to take money for liquor from the earnings of co-accused<\/p>\n
Parwati and beat her. Since 1.1.2004, the complainant had not seen the<\/p>\n
deceased and thus, he made inquiries from his sister-in-law Parwati asking<\/p>\n
the whereabouts of the deceased. Parwati then disclosed to him that she and<\/p>\n
her sister committed murder of Jait Mandal because he used to take liquor<\/p>\n
from her earnings and beat her. He had also beaten her on the first day of<\/p>\n
month. She further disclosed to him that she with her sister Thakur Manni<\/p>\n
had taken deceased Jait Mandal to Suraj Kund, Faridabad, in an auto<\/p>\n
rickshaw, which had returned after dropping them there. Thereafter, she<\/p>\n
with the assistance of her sister Thakur Manni by using a gamchi (a piece of<\/p>\n
cloth used for covering head), had strangulated deceased Jait Mandal. They<\/p>\n
had thrown the dead body near the bushes of Suraj Kund thereafter. As the<\/p>\n
complainant was not convinced by the statement, therefore, he being<\/p>\n
accompanied by his brother-in-law Amolo Mandal (PW-8), set out for the<\/p>\n
search of dead body. Accused-Parwati also made a call to Delhi Police and<\/p>\n
was then taken to police post. Complainant (PW1) and his brother-in-law<\/p>\n
Amolo Mandal (PW-8) went to Suraj Kund, from where they came to know<\/p>\n
that one dead body was recovered from the bushes in front of Lakewood<\/p>\n
and that dead body was kept lying in B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. Thereafter<\/p>\n
they went to hospital and identified the dead body of deceased-Jait Mandal.<\/p>\n
This also appears from the statement of ASI Pritam Singh (PW-9) and<\/p>\n
Bishamber (PW-15), a Delhi Police Constable, that accused-Parwati made a<\/p>\n
disclosure statement that she with the help of her sister Thakur Manni, had
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
committed the murder of her husband. Both the accused persons were taken<\/p>\n
into custody; the inquest of dead body was conducted, and then the dead<\/p>\n
body was sent for postmortem examination. The cause of death according<\/p>\n
to Board of Doctors was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation.<\/p>\n
On completion of investigation, a challan was put up under Sections<\/p>\n
302<\/a>\/201<\/a>\/34<\/a> IPC against three accused persons, namely, both the appellants<\/p>\n
Thakur Mani and Parwati, and one Pawan Mandal and the charges were<\/p>\n
framed accordingly. Pursuant thereto, all the three accused persons were<\/p>\n
tried but only both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as<\/p>\n
aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
             Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the disclosure<\/p>\n
statements made before ASI Pritam Singh (PW9) and Constable Bishamber<\/p>\n
(PW15) are only in the nature of confession before police, which would not<\/p>\n
be admissible in evidence. According to Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants, this statement is nothing but an attempt to get support to the<\/p>\n
proceedings of recovery of dead body. According to learned counsel, co-<\/p>\n
accused Pawan Mandal, who was in possession of a Tata Sumo belonging to<\/p>\n
Reliance Company, had though made an extra judicial confession before<\/p>\n
Ramesh (PW3), but has since been acquitted on the same set of evidence.<\/p>\n
Auto-rickshaw alleged to have been used for transporting the deceased to<\/p>\n
Suraj Kund was not produced and its owner was also not examined. Even<\/p>\n
according to the statement of Doctor, time between the death and<\/p>\n
postmortem examination, being 36 to 96 hours, would not establish<\/p>\n
conclusively the date of incident. Extra judicial confessions said to have<\/p>\n
been made before Naimai Mandal (PW1) and Amolo Mandal (PW8) were
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
also denied by them in their examination-in-chief. In inquest report, articles<\/p>\n
belonging to deceased Jait Mandal were mentioned against column No.7,<\/p>\n
but in the list of articles, gamchi used for strangulation does not find<\/p>\n
mention. Besides, the gamchi was not shown to Doctor to find out as to<\/p>\n
whether the strangulation of deceased was possible with the help of that<\/p>\n
cloth. As per the FSL report of viscera, only the presence of ethyle alcohol<\/p>\n
was detected from examination.      In their statements under Section 313<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have completely denied the allegations<\/p>\n
levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for State<\/p>\n
of Haryana, submitted that though this case is based on circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence, but each link in the chain of circumstances has been individually<\/p>\n
proved, so also the chain of circumstances has been found to be complete.<\/p>\n
Learned State counsel also submitted that the disclosure statements made<\/p>\n
before PW9 and PW-15 are worth reliance for the reason that the accused<\/p>\n
wife had not reported the matter about the disappearance of her deceased<\/p>\n
husband to the police or to any relative. Besides, only at the instance of<\/p>\n
accused appellant Parwati and her sister co-accused Thakur Mani, shoes<\/p>\n
and gamchi were recovered. As there was a ligature mark on neck, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the deceased had died of consumption of liquor and of<\/p>\n
consequent falling on some stone.\n<\/p>\n
             From a close and careful analysis of the aforesaid evidence, it<\/p>\n
appears that the prosecution case is totally based on the circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence. Circumstances, which the prosecution had tried to establish before<\/p>\n
the trial Court, are:\n<\/p>\n
             ( i ) the conduct of deceased towards accused Parwati in a
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
            background that the deceased used to take heavy liquor; and<\/p>\n
            would snatch away her earnings and beat her;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) the disappearance of deceased from his house;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (iii) the confessions made by the accused appellants before<\/p>\n
            PW1 and PW8, their close relatives;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (iv) the recovery of dead body and articles belonging to<\/p>\n
            deceased Jait Mandal, namely, shoes etc.;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (v) the recovery of gamchi, a piece of cloth used for<\/p>\n
            strangulation of the deceased;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (vi) the inquest proceedings; as well as postmortem report and<\/p>\n
            also the FSL report, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (vii) the disclosure statements made by the accused persons<\/p>\n
            before Delhi Police personnel ASI Pritam Singh (PW9) and<\/p>\n
            Constable Bishamber (PW15).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            In order to prove these circumstances, the prosecution had<\/p>\n
examined as many as 16 witnesses. Out of them, 5 are public witnesses<\/p>\n
whereas 11 are police personnel and official witnesses.<\/p>\n
            Naimai Mandal (PW1) is the complainant being brother of<\/p>\n
deceased Jait Mandal. Uddab Charan (PW2) had discovered the dead body<\/p>\n
on 6.1.2004 at about 8.00 am when he had gone to the jungle near Suraj<\/p>\n
Kund, to answer the call of nature. He had informed the police about the<\/p>\n
presence of dead body and his statement under Section 161<\/a> Cr.P.C. had also<\/p>\n
been recorded. Ramesh (PW3) is the witness before whom the acquitted co-<\/p>\n
accused Pawan Mandal had made an extra judicial confession on 8.1.2004<\/p>\n
that he along with co-accused Parwati, Thakur Manni and Chandervir, had<\/p>\n
committed the murder of deceased Jait Mandal and thrown his dead body in
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
the forest area of Suraj Kund after carrying it in a Tata Sumo belonging to<\/p>\n
the Reliance Company. The Tata Sumo was found to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
absconding accused Chandervir. Pawan Mandal had got recovered the Tata<\/p>\n
Sumo vide recovery memo (Ex.PR). Parvinder (PW4) was working as a<\/p>\n
driver in the Reliance Company. He had produced before police a Tata<\/p>\n
Sumo bearing registration number D11Y-8834 along with its registration<\/p>\n
certificate. The Tata Sumo and registration certificate were taken into<\/p>\n
possession by police vide memos (Ex.PR and Ex.PS).          Shakir Hussain<\/p>\n
(PW5) was posted as Incharge of Police Post, Suraj Kund. He had recorded<\/p>\n
the statement of complainant Naimai Mandal vide Ex.PA and pursuant<\/p>\n
thereto, a formal FIR (Ex.PA\/2) was recorded by ASI Tek Chand. PW 5 had<\/p>\n
investigated the case by visiting the spot of incident. He had also prepared<\/p>\n
a rough site plan (Ex.PT), with correct marginal notes, and had lifted blood<\/p>\n
stained earth vide Ex.PG from the spot, and arrested accused Parwati and<\/p>\n
her sister Thakur Manni on being produced by Delhi Police. He had also<\/p>\n
conducted inquest proceedings vide Ex.PV and after the postmortem of<\/p>\n
dead body had been completed, he had taken into possession the<\/p>\n
incriminating articles belonging to deceased. Gamchi, which had been used<\/p>\n
in the commission of offence was identified by the accused wife Parwati,<\/p>\n
vide Ex.PC and accused Thakur Manni vide Ex.PD. On 8.1.2004, accused<\/p>\n
Pawan was produced by Ramesh (PW3) and the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
recorded the statement of PW3 and arrested the accused Pawan. During the<\/p>\n
course of interrogation, accused Pawan had suffered a disclosure statement<\/p>\n
(Ex.PN) to the effect that he along with co-accused Parwati, Thakur Manni<\/p>\n
and Chandervir had committed murder of deceased Jait Mandal and thrown<\/p>\n
the dead body in the forest area of Suraj Kund after carrying it in a Tata
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
Sumo. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused Pawan, the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer had also demarcated the place where the accused<\/p>\n
persons had committed the murder of deceased Jait Mandal, vide memo<\/p>\n
(Ex.PN\/1), and also the place where the dead body had been thrown, vide<\/p>\n
memo (Ex.PN\/2). On 8.1.2004, he took into possession the Tata Sumo<\/p>\n
vehicle with registration certificate. In his cross-examination, the I.O. has<\/p>\n
clarified that complainant Naimai Mandal had met him in B.K.Hospital,<\/p>\n
Faridabad, at about 2\/3 pm, where he had recorded his statement. He had<\/p>\n
sent a ruqa in respect thereof at about 3.10 pm. Another witness Constable<\/p>\n
Sharmila (PW6) was posted at Police Station, NIT, Faridabad, on 7.1.2004.<\/p>\n
She has stated that in her presence, accused Thakur Manni had been<\/p>\n
interrogated, who had disclosed about concealing the shoes of deceased Jait<\/p>\n
Mandal in the bushes of hills area of Suraj Kund. Her disclosure statement<\/p>\n
was recorded vide memo (Ex.PJ). Accused Thakur Manni also got<\/p>\n
recovered the shoes vide recovery memo (Ex.PQ). Accused Thakur Manni<\/p>\n
also demarcated the place where the murder of deceased Jait Mandal had<\/p>\n
been committed and the place where the dead body had been thrown.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in her presence, co-accused Parwati had also suffered the<\/p>\n
disclosure statement (Ex.PK), who made the disclosure statement in line<\/p>\n
with co-accused Thakur Manni. On 8.1.2004, accused Parwati and Thakur<\/p>\n
Manni were again interrogated and they suffered further disclosure<\/p>\n
statements vide Ex.PL and Ex.PM.          On 7.1.2004, a day before the<\/p>\n
supplementary disclosure statements, accused Parwati had got the red<\/p>\n
gamchi belonging to deceased Jait Mandal identified, vide memo (Ex.PC).<\/p>\n
Amolo Mandal (PW8), like PW1, is also a witness before whom the<\/p>\n
disclosure statements had been made and who had also along with PW1 had
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
made efforts to search out the dead body of deceased Jait Mandal. ASI<\/p>\n
Pritam Singh of Delhi Police (PW9) stated that he had received a wireless<\/p>\n
message from PCR at about 11.50 am to the effect that accused Parwati had<\/p>\n
come and told that she had committed the murder of her husband with the<\/p>\n
help of her sister Thakur Manni. She had also disclosed that the dead body<\/p>\n
was lying in the forest area of Suraj Kund and in regard thereto, DD No.10<\/p>\n
(Ex.PU) was recorded. He along with Constable Satender brought both the<\/p>\n
accused to Suraj Kund jungle for locating the body. However, on the way at<\/p>\n
the Chowk of Suraj Kund,       Haryana Police    personnel had met him,<\/p>\n
therefore, he had handed over both the accused sisters along with DD No.10<\/p>\n
(Ex.PU) to them.    According to this witness, in his presence, an extra<\/p>\n
judicial confession had been made by accused Parwati on the line of one<\/p>\n
said to have been given before Naimai Mandal (PW1) and Amolo Mandal<\/p>\n
(PW8). Anoj Kumar (PW10) had prepared a scaled site plan (Ex.PZ) on<\/p>\n
being pointed out by complainant Naimai Mandal (PW1) with the correct<\/p>\n
marginal notes. EHC Suresh Chand (PW11) was posted as Moharir Head<\/p>\n
Constable, at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, on 7.1.2004. He had received a<\/p>\n
packet containing the clothes of deceased given by the Doctor, which was<\/p>\n
deposited by the SHO with him. Constable Vijay Kumar (PW12) was<\/p>\n
posted at Police Post Suraj Kund, Faridabad, on 23.1.2004. MHC Suresh<\/p>\n
had handed over to him the case property for being delivered to FSL,<\/p>\n
Madhuban. He stated that during the custody of case property, it had not<\/p>\n
been tampered in any manner. Constable Ram Kumar (PW13) was also<\/p>\n
posted at Police Station NIT, Faridabad, on 7.1.2004. He tendered his<\/p>\n
evidence on affidavit (Ex.PAA). He had delivered the special report at<\/p>\n
about 10\/10.15 pm on 7.1.2004 to the Area Magistrate. Randhir Singh
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
(PW14) was posted as SHO, Police Station NIT, Faridabad, on 7.1.2004.<\/p>\n
He had reached the spot where SI Shakir Hussain, Incharge, Police Post<\/p>\n
Suraj Kund, met and entrusted him the further investigation of this case. He<\/p>\n
was also handed over the custody of accused Parwati and Thakur Manni.<\/p>\n
This witness interrogated them and on interrogation, a disclosure statement<\/p>\n
(Ex.PK) of accused Parwati was recorded. She disclosed that she along with<\/p>\n
her sister Thakur Manni had committed the murder of her husband Jait<\/p>\n
Mandal and she could indicate the places where the offence had been<\/p>\n
committed and where the dead body had been thrown. On a similar line, co-<\/p>\n
accused Thakur Manni was also interrogated and her disclosure statement<\/p>\n
(Ex.PJ) was recorded. Constable Dharambir after getting the postmortem<\/p>\n
report from Doctor, produced a gamchi, which was stained with blood. That<\/p>\n
gamchi was got identified by accused Parwati vide memo (Ex.PC). He also<\/p>\n
took into possession a packet containing viscera etc. of the dead body.<\/p>\n
Jacket of deceased Jait Mandal was also taken into possession by this<\/p>\n
witness. Similarly, he also took into possession a T-shirt, shirt, pent etc.,<\/p>\n
which were stained with blood.         During the interrogation, accused<\/p>\n
appellants had also disclosed that the offence had been committed along<\/p>\n
with two other co-accused Pawan and Chandervir. Besides, the recovery of<\/p>\n
shoes (Ex.P7 and Ex.P8) had also been done at the instance of the accused<\/p>\n
persons. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated the statement given in<\/p>\n
his examination-in-chief. Constable Bishamber (PW15) has also given a<\/p>\n
statement on the line of ASI Pritam Singh (PW9). Harshdev Bahuguna<\/p>\n
(PW16) was a Photographer. On asking of the police, he had gone to Suraj<\/p>\n
Kund forest and taken 4 snaps (Ex.P9 to Ex.P12), with their negatives<\/p>\n
(Ex.P13 to Ex.P16).\n<\/p>\n
 Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
            At this stage, the prosecution closed its evidence and then the<\/p>\n
accused appellants were examined under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C. They claimed<\/p>\n
false implication and pleaded innocence. However, they being ladies could<\/p>\n
not produce any defence witness in their support.\n<\/p>\n
            Looking to the evidence of witnesses so also other<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence placed on record, we find that there is a complete<\/p>\n
denial of allegations by both the accused appellants, who are the real sisters.<\/p>\n
As per the evidence of Naimai Mandal (PW1) and Amolo Mandal (PW8),<\/p>\n
both the sisters were living separately. This has also come in the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW8 that deceased Jait Mandal often used to stay away from his family<\/p>\n
for 2\/3 days in one spell. He was a habitual drunkard and though a mason by<\/p>\n
profession he was in the habit of taking money from his wife for purchasing<\/p>\n
liquor and would then beat her. We also notice in the inquest report that<\/p>\n
though all the articles belonging to deceased Jait Mandal are mentioned<\/p>\n
therein but the gamchi, which is said to have been used in the commission<\/p>\n
of offence is conspicuous by absence in that list of articles. The<\/p>\n
incriminating materials like disclosure statement or extra judicial<\/p>\n
confessions, as projected by the prosecution, also appear to suffer from<\/p>\n
serious infirmity, inasmuch as there was no discovery or recovery pursuant<\/p>\n
thereto and such a statement made before the police has no evidentiary<\/p>\n
value. Admittedly, the dead body was found to be kept in B.K.Hospital,<\/p>\n
Faridabad, and assuming for the sake of arguments that both the accused<\/p>\n
sisters had made confessions before complainant Naimai Mandal (PW1) and<\/p>\n
Amolo Mandal (PW8), but the fact remains that the dead body had not been<\/p>\n
recovered from the place as indicated by them. Moreover, we also notice<\/p>\n
that complainant Naimai Mandal (PW1) had turned hostile at one stage and
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
did not support the extra judicial confessions made by accused Parwati and<\/p>\n
Thakur Manni. Similar is the stand taken by another witness Amolo Mandal<\/p>\n
(PW8). Besides, on the same set of evidence, Pawan Mandal, who had also<\/p>\n
made a similar extra judicial confession before Ramesh (PW3), has been<\/p>\n
acquitted by the trial Court. Further, as per the FSL report, 1 c (blood) of<\/p>\n
the deceased was found to contain the ethyle alcohol in the strength of<\/p>\n
126.50 mg%. Thus, as the deceased was a drunkard and often used to stay<\/p>\n
away from his family, there was nothing unusual on the part of accused<\/p>\n
Parwati, his wife, to expect that her husband would return, if he could not be<\/p>\n
seen for a few days. The argument regarding motive attributed to the<\/p>\n
accused sisters that as the deceased husband Jait Mandal had been<\/p>\n
extracting money from his wife accused Parwati to purchase liquor and<\/p>\n
then beating her and that is why both the accused sisters had committed his<\/p>\n
murder also does not seem to carry any force inasmuch as the deceased, who<\/p>\n
was a young man of 30-32 years, could not have been overpowered by both<\/p>\n
of them. Had accused Parwati and Thakur Mani made extra judicial<\/p>\n
confessions before Naimai Mandal (PW1) and Amolo Mandal (PW8) and<\/p>\n
had they been repentant over their act, then there was no reason for PW1<\/p>\n
and PW8 to have turned hostile and resiled from their statements under<\/p>\n
Section 161<\/a> Cr.P.C. Moreover, the prosecution has introduced different<\/p>\n
theories at different stages of investigation connected with the disclosure<\/p>\n
statements, extra judicial confessions and the recovery of dead body which<\/p>\n
have been rather found to be destructive of each other and as noticed earlier,<\/p>\n
they are also not admissible in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of all the aforesaid discussions and the re-appreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence, we do not find the prosecution case to be proved beyond the
\n Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, while granting the benefits of doubt to the<\/p>\n
accused appellants, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.86-DB of 2006. Appellants who are said to be in jail<\/p>\n
are directed to be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other<\/p>\n
case.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                 ( UMA NATH SINGH )\n                                                       JUDGE\n\n\n\n1.12.2008                                        ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )\n      pk                                                JUDGE\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter: YES\/NO\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008 Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Appeal No.86-DB of 2006 Date of decision: 1.12.2008 Thakur Mani and another … Appellants Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath […]<\/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-262214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 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\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-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=\"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-24T17:29:56+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T17:29:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3243,\"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\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T17:29:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 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":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 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\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-24T17:29:56+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T17:29:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008"},"wordCount":3243,"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\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008","name":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T17:29:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thakur-mani-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-1-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thakur Mani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 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\/262214","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=262214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}