{"id":58871,"date":"2003-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003"},"modified":"2015-10-04T12:04:29","modified_gmt":"2015-10-04T06:34:29","slug":"harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: R Kathuria<\/div>\n
Bench: R Kathuria<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 R.C. Kathuria, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This appeal is directecd against the judgment
\ndated 11.1.1990 of the Additional Sessions Judge,
\nFerozepur convicting the appellant-accused under Section
\n376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and
\nsentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
\nperiod of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous
\nimprisonment for three months and also convicting and
\nsentencing the accused under Section 452 I.P.C. to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
\nto pay fine of Rs. 100\/- and in default of payment of fine
\nto undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
\nBoth the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The prosecution version as spelled out from the
\nstatement Ex. PE made by prosecutrix (named withheld)
\n(PW-3) is that on 21.9.1989 at about 2.00 p.m., she was
\nbusy in washing clothes in the court yard of house located
\nin Village Jhrur Khera. Her brother, father and mother
\nwere not present in the house as they had gone out in
\nconnection with labour work, Finding her along in the
\nhouse, Harjit Singh alias Jit Singh, appellant-accused
\ncame there. He showed knife to her and asked her to go
\ninside the house. He threatened her that if she raised
\nalarm, she would be killed. Thereafter, he untied her
\nSalwar and in the process tore it. Thereafter, he
\ncommitted rape on her. The prosecutrix did not raise
\nalarm because of the threat to kill her extended by the
\naccused. Meanwhile, Rajinder Singh (PW-4), brother of the
\nprosecutrix in the company of his uncle Sucha Singh came
\nthere. They witnessed this occurrence and tried to catch
\nhold of the accused. Accused pushe them while showing
\nknife of them and was successful in running away from the
\nspot. When they were going to lodge the report. Boota
\nSingh, father of Harjit Singh, accused came there and
\nthreatened them that if they proceeded to lodge the
\nreport, they would be killed. On the next day, the
\nprosecutrix in the company of Sucha Singh and Mohinder
\nSingh, Sarpanch proceeded to the Police Station to lodge
\nthe report. While they were present at the Bus Stop.
\nKhuian Sarwa, Assistant Sub Inspector Onkar Singh (PW-5)
\nmet them. He recorded the statement of the prosecutrix
\nEx.PE and after making his endorsement it as Ex.PE\/1
\ntransmitted the same to the police station on the basis of
\nwhich formal FIR Ex. PE\/2 was recorded by ASI Ram Singh.
\nASI Onkar Singh took prosecutrix to Civil Hospital for
\nmedical examination. He moved application Ex. PA before
\nthe Medical Officer Dr. Sunil Alipuria (PW-1). The Medical
\nOfficer conducted the medical examination of the
\nprosecutrix on 22.1.1989 at 2.00 p.m. and vide report
\nEx. PB noticed infected wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm deep
\non the outer aspect of left forearm 5.0 cm above the
\nwrist. Vaginal Swab was taken and she along with
\nclothes of the prosecutrix were handed over to ASI Onkar
\nSingh vide recovery memo PC. Thereafter, ASI Onkar Singh
\nwent to the spot of occurrence and prepared rough site
\nplan Ex. PH and recorded the statement of other witnesses.
\nAccused Harjit Singh was arrested on 31.1.1989 while his
\nco-accused Boota Singh was arrested on 3.2.1989 by the
\nInvestigating Officer. Medical Examination of accused was
\ndone on 1.2.1989 by Medical Officer Dr. Dalip Kumar
\n(PW-2), who vide his report Ex. PD opined that there was
\nnothing to suggest that he was incapable of doing sexual
\nintercourse. On completion of investigation, police
\nreport was filed by SI Ram Singh. On these allegations
\ncharges under Sections 376 and 452 I.P.C. were framed
\nagainst appellant-accused, Harjit Singh, while co-accused,
\nBoota Singh, was charged under Section 506 I.P.C. Both
\nthe accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
 3. In order to link the accused with the crime,
\nprosecution solicited the help of Dr. Sunil Alipuria
\n(PW-1), Dr. Dalip Kumar (PW-2), prosecutrix (PW-3),
\nRajinder Singh (PW-4) and ASI Onkar Singh (PW-5). In
\naddition, the prosecution tendered in evidence the
\naffidavits of MHC Kewal Krishan and Constable Ajaib Singh,
\nExs. PF and PG respectively besides the report of Forensic
\nScience Laboratory Ex. PK. When examined under Section 313
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Code’), the accused denied the
\nprosecution allegation completely and furnished the
\nreasons for his implication as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The case has been registered against me and may
\nfather at the influence of Mohinder Singh
\nSarpanch against whom my father had not got an
\nenquiry order for misappropriating Rs. 2 lacs of
\nthe Panchayat fund and in that enquiry Mohinder
\nSingh, Sarpanch was directed to deposit
\nRs. 50,000\/- and the same was deposited. On
\nthat account the Sarpanch was inimical towards
\nus. Earlier Jagtar Singh son of  Darshan Singh
\nhad tried to molest the niece of Kikkar Singh
\nin which my father sided with Kikkar Singh and
\nalso took the master to the Police. Jagtar
\nSingh belongs to the party of the Sarpanch and
\non that account case also under Section 326
\nI.P.C. was registered against Darshan Singh
\nand Jagtar Singh on one side and my father on
\nthe other side. It is false case at the
\ninstance of the Sarpanch.”\n<\/p>\n
 4. Boota Singh, co-accused in his statement under
\nSection 313 of the Code refuted the prosecution allegation
\nand further took the stand that this case had been foisted
\non him and his son at the instance of Mohinder Singh,
\nSarpanch against whom, he had made a complaint for
\nmisappropriation of Rs. 2 lacs of the panchayat fund which
\nhad resulted in inquiry against him and said Sarpanch was
\nmade to deposit Rs. 50,000\/- and for that reason he was
\ninimical towards him. In support of the stand taken by
\nhim, he examined Iqbal Singh, Block Development Officer,
\nAbohar (DW-1),  who stated that the record of the inquiry
\nconducted by the Additional Director, Panchayat,
\nChandigarh against Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch of Village
\nJhrur Khera was with the Additional Director, Panchayat.
\nAmarjit Singh, Clerk in the office of Director, Rural
\nDevelopment and Panchayat, Punjab at Chandigarh (DW-2)
\nproduced the copy of the complaint made by Boota Singh
\nagainst Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch, copy of which is Ex. DA
\nand the inquiry report, Ex.DB.\n<\/p>\n
 5. On appraisal of the evidence led on record, the
\ntrial court came to the conclusion that possibility of
\nfalse involvement of Boota Singh due to enmity with
\nMohinder Singh, Sarpanch could not be ruled out and for
\nthat reason giving him benefit of doubt acquitted him. At
\nthe same time, the trial Court accepted the prosecution
\nevidence with regard to the involvement of the
\nappellant-accused in commission of the crime and while
\nrejecting his defence version  convicted and sentenced him
\nas stated above. Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 6. I heard counsel for the appellant-accused as
\nwell as the State counsel at length.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Learned counsel representing the appellant-
\naccused assailed the reliability of the prosecution
\nevidence on several grounds. In the forefront, it was
\nurged by him that the prosecutrix was aged about 20 years
\nand the medical evidence led on record reveals that no
\nvaginal injury or any other injury suggestive of forced
\nsexual intercourse with her had been noticed by the
\nMedical Officer which would indicate the case to be of
\nconsent. It was also submitted by him that the hymen of
\nthe prosecutrix was not intact which shows that the
\nprosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse despite being
\nunmarried which fact had not been taken into consideration
\nby the trial court. It was also highlighted by him that
\nno explanation for delay in lodging the report had been
\nrendered by the prosecution which affected the credibility
\nof the version rendered. Lastly, it  was contended that
\nbecause of the enmity of the father of the appellant with
\nSarpanch Mohinder Singh, the accused had been falsely
\nimplicated in this case. These submissions had been
\ncountered on behalf of the prosecution for the reasons
\nrecorded in the judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The evidence on record clearly brings out that
\nthe prosecutrix belongs to socially weaker section of
\nsociety. Rajinder Singh, brother of the prosecutrix had
\nstated that he belongs to Mehra caste while Harjit Singh,
\naccused is Jat by caste. He had been earning his
\nlivelihood by doing labour work and for that reason he had
\ngone to clean utensils of Surat Singh, Panch. He had been
\ngetting daily wages for the services rendered by him. On
\nthe date of occurrence, his mother had also gone to clean
\nutensils in the village on the date of occurrence. It had
\ncome in his statement that he had one brother and three
\nsisters out of which two sisters reside in the village.
\nHis elder sister is married in Village Jeowala.\n<\/p>\n
 9. On the date of occurrence, according to the
\nprosecutrix, her father and brother had gone to do labour
\nwork in  the village while her mother had gone to attend to
\nthe marriage work and to distribute Patasha in the
\nvillage. She explained that her brother and father used
\nto return to the house occasionally during the noon time
\nfor taking rest for two hours. It is also brought out in
\nthe statement of the prosecutrix that her house in which
\nshe has been residing with her parents and brother is
\nlocated in the Abadi. The house of Sain Dass is located
\non one side while three other houses are situated at a
\ndistance of 30-35 Karams from their house. She had
\nexplained in her deposition that house of Harjit Singh,
\naccused is situated at a distance of 5\/7 Killas away from
\nthe outskirts of the village while that of Sucha Singh is
\nabout 5\/7 houses away in the same street from their house.
\nTherefore, Harjit Singh was fully aware about the
\nengagement of the family members of the prosecutrix.
\nThere is nothing improbable in his conduct when he had
\nchosen to satisfy his lust by going to the house of the
\nprosecutrix at about 2.00 p.m. where she was present all
\nalone.\n<\/p>\n
 10. The prosecutrix during her testimony in Court
\nhad given her age as 17 years while the Medical Officer,
\nDr. Sunil Alipuria, on 22.1.1989 the date of medico-legal
\nexamination of the prosecutrix had mentioned her age as
\n20 years. The prosecutrix during the course of her
\nstatement had given an account as to the manner in which
\nshe was raped by the accused under the threat of killing
\nher by showing a knife to her and explained that she did
\nnot raise alarm when she was taken to the room and her
\nSalwar was untied and torn by the accused and also during
\nthe period he committed sexual intercourse with her
\nbecause of the fear generated in her mind on account of
\nthreat given by the accused. She claimed that she had
\ntried to catch hold of the accused and had given pushes to
\nhim in the process of rape committed by the accused,
\nwhich lasted for 5-6 minutes. The accused had also pushed
\nher down by force and in the scuffle her shirt was torn.
\nShe claimed that a tooth bite was given by the accused on
\nher breast but it had left no mark. She also stated that
\nshe had suffered scratches on her back. It had also come
\nin her statement that Rajinder Singh and her uncle Sucha
\nSingh had reached the spot and tried to catch hold of the
\naccused. However, accused showed knife to them and
\nmanaged to run away from there.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Rajinder Singh had fully corroborated the
\ntestimony of the prosecutrix. He too maintained in his
\ndeposition that at about 1.45 p.m. his uncle told him
\nthat they should go to his house to enquire about the
\nhealth of Surjan Singh. On reaching near the Chowka at
\nabout 2.00 p.m., they saw Harjit Singh  committing sexual
\nintercourse with the prosecutrix. Both Rajinder Singh and
\nSucha Singh tried to catch hold of the accused but after
\nshowing knife and giving pushes to them, he ran away from
\nthere. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the incident
\nto them in detail that while she was washing clothes, the
\naccused came and kept the knife on her neck and thereafter
\nshe was taken inside the room and after opening the string
\nof the Salwar, the accused committed sexual intercourse
\nwith her forcibly. He had stated that he had noticed
\nscratches on the face and other parts of the body of his
\nsister.\n<\/p>\n
 12. By now it is well settled that the prosecutrix,
\nwho is the victim of offence of rape is not an accomplice
\nof the crime. Her testimony can be accepted without
\ncorroboration unless the Court finds on the basis of
\nevidence on record that it suffers from such infirmities
\nthat it would render it unsafe to place reliance on it and
\nis unworthy of acceptance. It is for that reason it has
\nbeen observed by the Apex Court in  State of Punjab v.
\nGurmit<\/a> singh and Ors., 1966 S.C.C. (Cri.) 316 that “a
\nmurderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a
\nrapist degrades the very soul of helpless female. The
\nCourts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while
\ntrying an accused on the charge of rape. They must deal
\nwith such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts
\nshould examine the broader probabilities of a case and not
\nget swayed by minor contradictions and insignificant
\ndiscrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix, which
\nare not of a fatal nature, to throw out and otherwise
\nreliable prosecution case.”\n<\/p>\n
 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused
\nstrenuously urged that as no injuries’ were found on the
\nperson of the prosecutrix during the course of medical
\nexamination by the Medical Officer and rather, according
\nto the finding of the Medical Officer her hymen was not
\nfound infact, it has to be construed that she was used to
\nsexual intercourse and these circumstances justify a
\nconclusion that she had put up a false story in order to
\nrope in the accused in this case. Alternatively, he
\ncontended that it should be construed as a case of
\nconsent. Additional plea raised by him was that it is
\ntotally inconceivable that at the day time at about 2.00 p.m.,
\nthe accused would venture to go to the house of the
\nprosecutrix in order to commit rape knowing fully well
\nthat he would be noticed by the neighbourers whose houses
\nare located nearby the house of the prosecutrix which is
\nlocated in the  Abadi of the village. There is absolutely
\nno merit in the stand taken on behalf of the accused in
\nthis regard. It is difficult to predict what works in the
\nperverted mind at a particular point of time. In this
\ncase, the statement of the prosecutrix had amply brought
\non record that at the time when the accused went to the
\nhouse she was all alone and at that time the accused put
\nknife on her neck and threatened her that if she made any
\nnoise, she would be killed. She was taken to the
\nadjoining room and raped. Her statement is fully
\ncorroborated by Rajinder Singh. She had also informed her
\nbrother about the incident which had taken place with her
\nwhich is admissible as evidence of her conduct.\n<\/p>\n
 14. Coming to the findings of Medical Officer, Dr.
\nSunil Alipuria, who had conducted medical examination of
\nthe prosecutrix on 22.1.1989 at about 2.00 p.m. and had
\nnoticed infected wound dimension of which had been stated
\nearlier, according to her “there was no vaginal injury.
\nHymen was not intact. Vagina was loose. Examining
\nfingers blood stained. Probable duration of injury was
\nmore than 36 hours.” It is further stated  by her that “it
\nis possible that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual
\nintercourse since her hymen was not intact and vagina was
\nloose.” The vaginal swab was blood stained which was taken
\ninto possession and was handed over to the Police along
\nwith Salwar Ex. P.1 and shirt Ex. P.2 and proved his
\nattestation on recovery memo Ex. PC. No doubt, with regard
\nto the incised wound, the duration of this injury had been
\ngiven as more than 36 hours which means that it was not
\nco-relatable to the time of occurrence. The Medical
\nOfficer had not noticed any other injury on her person.\n<\/p>\n
 15. The prosecutrix  no doubt had stated in her
\nstatement that in the scuffle, she had suffered some
\nscratches on her back. No further information was sought
\nfrom her as to whether by the time she appeared before the
\nMedical Officer, those scratches were visible to the naked
\neye or not. Even the Medical Officer was not specifically
\nasked whether he had noticed any scratches or any other
\ninjuries  on other parts of her body. No further
\ninformation was sought from the prosecutrix on behalf of
\nthe accused that the room where she was laid down had
\nrough floor or smooth floor, Therefore, no conclusion can
\nbe drawn from the statement of the prosecutrix that
\nscratches suffered by her were skin deep so as to have a
\nlasting effect upto the time when she was examined by the
\nMedical Officer. Even the statement of prosecutrix that
\nteeth bite was given by the accused on her breast did not
\nleave any mark had not been challenged during the course
\nof her testimony. Even no information in this regard was
\nsought from the Medical Officer. Under the circumstances
\nof the case, it cannot be said that because other injuries
\nwere not found on her body by the Medical Officer at the
\ntime of her medical examination that would negate the
\nprosecution case. In the present case, it is further
\nbrought out in the statement of the prosecutrix that at
\nthe time when she was subjected to rape by the accused,
\nshe caught hold of him and tried to give pushes to him
\ndespite the fact that the accused had extended threat of
\nkilling her by knife. Therefore, presumption in terms of
\nthe requirement of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence
\nAct has to be raised apart from the factual position
\nbrought on record in the statement of the prosecutrix.
\nFurther merely because the Medical Officer had stated that
\nthe prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse on the
\nbasis of finding that hymen was not found intact and
\nvagina was loose would not justify, in any manner.
\nConclusion that the prosecutrix had consented to the
\nsexual intercourse committed on her by the
\nappellant-accused as sought to be contended on behalf of
\nthe accused. Merely, because a girl or woman is used to
\nsexual intercourse does not permit anyone to make her an
\nobject of prey for sexually assaulting her. It is not a
\ncase where any information was sought from the prosecutrix
\nin this regard. It has already been noticed that she had
\nresisted the accused when rape was being committed on her
\nby the accused. One cannot ignore her version. The
\nreport Ex. PK of the Forensic Science Laboratory had also
\nbeen placed on record which revealed that Salwar mark
\n‘a-1’ and Kameej mark ‘a-2’ in parcel ‘A’ were stained
\nwith human blood though the vaginal swab of the
\nprosecutrix mark ‘b-1’ and ‘b-2’, two cotton swabs besides
\nthe Salwar and Kameej did not contain seminal stains. It
\nhas been authoritatively laid down in  State of H.P. v.
\nGian Chand,<\/a> 2001 SCC (Cri.) 980 that discovery of
\nspermatozoa in the private part of the victim is not
\nnecessary to establish penetration because there are
\nseveral factors which make the non-presence of spermatozoa
\nas had been laid down in  Narayanamma v. State of
\nKarnataka,<\/a> 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1573. In the face of the
\ntestimony of prosecutrix coupled with the statement of her
\nbrother, Rajinder Singh, whose presence at the spot is
\nfully established, it has to be accepted that the
\nappellant-accused had committed rape on her.\n<\/p>\n
 16. Coming to the other submissions made with
\nregard to the delay in lodging the report, it cannot be
\nignored that the incident had taken place on 21.1.1989.
\nThough her father had returned to the house at 3.00 p.m.
\nbut the report was lodged by the prosecutrix with ASI
\nOnkar Singh at 1.00 p.m. on 22.1.1989 at the Bus Stop,
\nKhuian Sarwar. The explanation which had been rendered
\nfor the delayed lodging of report given by the prosecutrix
\nis that Boota Singh, father of the accused had come to
\ntheir house and had threatened to kill them if they lodged
\nthe report against his son. The threat extended by Boota
\nSingh had deterred them from immediately lodging the
\nreport. It was only the next day when the prosecutrix
\ngalvanised some strength, she along with Sucha Singh and
\nMohinder Singh, Sarpanch, proceeded to lodge the report
\nwith the Police.\n<\/p>\n
 17. The trial court had not accepted this
\nexplanation for the simple reason that Mohinder Singh,
\nSarpanch was inimical to Boota Singh, as complainant Ex. DA
\nwas made by Boota Singh against him which had been proved
\nby Amarjit Singh (DW-2) and indictment of Mohinder Singh
\nas is evident from the inquiry report Ex. DB. The trial
\nCourt also observed that time had been utilised by
\nMohinder Singh, Sarpanch to give a coloured version with
\nregard to the involvement of Boota Singh. No doubt Boota
\nSingh had been acquitted in respect of the offence under
\nSection 506 I.P.C. but that circumstance would not have
\nany effect with regard to the genuineness of the version
\nof rape rendered by the prosecutrix and her
\nbrother-Rajinder Singh. Moreover, delay in lodging the
\nreport cannot be used as an inflexible rule in doubting
\nthe case of the prosecution and discarding the same. The
\nonly effect of delay in lodging the report is that the
\nCourt has to be on guard to find out whether the
\nexplanation offered by the prosecution is satisfactory and
\nwhether it had led to the embellishment in the prosecution
\nversion. In the present case the fact that version of the
\nprosecutrix with regard to the threat given by Boota Singh
\nhad not been accepted by the trial Court cannot be taken
\nas a ground to discard the entire incident of rape. Even
\notherwise the maximum “falsus in uno and falsus in
\nomnibus” has no application in India. If such principle
\nis adopted, it would render the administration of criminal
\njustice non-functional. Thus, there is no merit int he
\nstand taken on behalf of the appellant-accused in this
\nregard.\n<\/p>\n
 18. As regards the defence version, no doubt both
\naccused, Harjit Singh and his father Boota Singh had taken
\nthe plea that they had been involved in this case by the
\nprosecutrix at the instance of Mohinder Singh, Sarpanch.
\nIt is totally inconceivable that father and brother of
\nprosecutrix would level a false case against the
\nappellant-accused with the help of prosecutrix with story
\nof sexual intercourse and risk the reputation of the
\nprosecutrix and future prospects of her marriage which
\nwould not only bring disgrace and dishonour to her but
\nalso to the entire family. The defence version as such
\ncarry no conviction at all and has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
 19. As regards the sentence, it is spelled out on
\nrecord that the prosecutrix was aged about 20 years
\naccording to the Medical Officer on the date of commission
\nof crime while the appellant-accused was aged about 19
\nyears. He by his beastly act had not only violated the
\nbody of helpless girl but had left a permanent stigma on
\nher which would remain with her throughout her life.
\nTherefore, while upholding the order of conviction and
\nsentence awarded by the trial Judge, the appeal filed by
\nthe appellant is dismissed. The appellant-accused shall
\nbe taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded to
\nhim.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 Author: R Kathuria Bench: R Kathuria JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. 1. This appeal is directecd against the judgment dated 11.1.1990 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur convicting the appellant-accused under Section 376 of the Indian […]<\/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-58871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - 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\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-04T06:34:29+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T06:34:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3953,\"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\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T06:34:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - 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\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-04T06:34:29+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T06:34:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003"},"wordCount":3953,"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\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003","name":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son ... vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T06:34:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harjit-singh-son-of-boota-singh-son-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-21-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harjit Singh Son Of Boota Singh Son … vs The State Of Punjab on 21 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/58871","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=58871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}