{"id":73200,"date":"2009-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-14T16:57:04","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T11:27:04","slug":"parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009<\/div>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                             -1-\n\nIN THE HIGH          COURT       OF     PUNJAB    AND     HARYANA        AT\nCHANDIGARH.\n\n            DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2009\n\n                  Parties Name\nSat Pal Singh and another\n\n                                      ...APPELLANTS.\n\n       VERSUS\nState of Punjab\n                                       ...RESPONDENT\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\nPRESENT:Mr. Vijay K. Jindal,Advocate,\n         with Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma,\n         Advocate, for appellant Sat Pal.\n\n            Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab;\n\n\nJASBIR SINGH, J.\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            It was allegation against the appellants that on October 4, 1991,<\/p>\n
they had committed murder of Jeet Singh son of Kaka Singh, aged about 25<\/p>\n
years, within revenue estate of village Namol, Police Station Longowal,<\/p>\n
district Sangrur. In the FIR, besides the appellants, two more persons,<\/p>\n
namely, Kaka Singh son of Maghar Singh and Jora Singh son of Sadda<\/p>\n
Singh were also named as the culprits. However, during investigation, they<\/p>\n
were found innocent and their names were put in column No. 2 of the final<\/p>\n
report. Vide judgment and order dated January 7, 2000, both the appellants<\/p>\n
were held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302<\/p>\n
read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 1 Satpal Singh was sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/- with
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
a default clause . Similarly, Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2 was sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000\/- with<\/p>\n
a default clause. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that<\/p>\n
Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2, had died during pendency of this appeal.<\/p>\n
            Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para<\/p>\n
No. 2 of its judgment, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
            “2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5-10-1991 ASI<\/p>\n
            Baldev Singh of Police Station Longowal along with other<\/p>\n
            police officials was present on the bridge of drain, in the area of<\/p>\n
            village Longowal, in connection with patrolling. There,<\/p>\n
            Mukand Singh son of Kaka Singh, Jat, resident of village<\/p>\n
            Namol along with Sarpanch Mohinder Singh and Kaur Singh<\/p>\n
            Member Panchayat came and Mukand Singh got recorded his<\/p>\n
            statement (Ex. PD) before ASI Baldev Singh, wherein he has<\/p>\n
            stated that he is resident of village Namol and they are four<\/p>\n
            brothers. The names of his other brothers are Sardara Singh,<\/p>\n
            Baldev Singh and Jeet Singh and all the four brothers reside<\/p>\n
            together and they are doing the work of agriculture. Sardara<\/p>\n
            Singh is serving in the Military. They have their fields known<\/p>\n
            as Tibbian Wala towards Sunam side and there is an electric<\/p>\n
            motor installed in that field and they used to keep their cattle<\/p>\n
            animals there in the field by constructing room. The<\/p>\n
            complainant further stated that his brother Jeet Singh used to<\/p>\n
            live in the fields to look after the animals. They used to take the<\/p>\n
            meals of Jeet Singh from their village turn by turn. The
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
        complainant has further stated in his statement that on<\/p>\n
        4.10.1991 at about 8.00 P.M., he reached the fields by taking<\/p>\n
        the meals for Jeet Singh and his brother Jeet Singh was found<\/p>\n
        present in the fields. In the meantime Harnek Singh son of<\/p>\n
        Narain Singh of Natha Patti, Namol, came to his brother Jeet<\/p>\n
        Singh and told him that he is being called by Sat Pal Singh alias<\/p>\n
        Jaggar son of Harnek Singh, Jat, Kaka Singh son of Maghar<\/p>\n
        Singh and Jora Singh son of Sada Singh Mazbi, residents of<\/p>\n
        village Namol, on the electric motor of Anter Singh son of<\/p>\n
        Jhaba Singh, resident of village Namol. The complainant<\/p>\n
        further stated that his brother Jeet Singh went along with<\/p>\n
        Harnek Singh without taking his meals. The complainant<\/p>\n
        further stated that he remained sitting on his electric motor in<\/p>\n
        the fields. He heard the alarm of ‘Marta Marta’ from the side of<\/p>\n
        electric motor of Anter Singh after about half an hour. The<\/p>\n
        complainant did not go there out of fear and he ran towards the<\/p>\n
        village. The complainant told about the entire occurrence to his<\/p>\n
        brothers Baldev Singh and Sardara Singh, who had come on<\/p>\n
        leave. They told the complainant that since the conditions in<\/p>\n
        Punjab were deteriorated, they will enquire in the next morning.<\/p>\n
        The complainant further stated that on that day, i.e., 5.10.1991,<\/p>\n
        they all the brothers went on the electric motor of Anter Singh<\/p>\n
        in search of their brother Jeet Singh and they found that their<\/p>\n
        brother Jeet Singh was lying dead in the Bore of the electric<\/p>\n
        motor of Anter Singh and there was signs of Gandasas and<\/p>\n
        Takuas on his head and mouth. The complainant left his
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
            brothers Sardara Singh and Baldev Singh at the spot and he<\/p>\n
            himself came to the village and reported the matter to Sarpanch<\/p>\n
            Mohinder Singh and Member Panchayat Kaur Singh. The spot<\/p>\n
            was shown to them by the complainant. He has also stated in<\/p>\n
            his statement before the police that in that year the land of<\/p>\n
            Anter Singh was taken on lease by Jora Singh son of Sada<\/p>\n
            Singh mazbi, resident of Namol. The complainant also stated<\/p>\n
            that his uncle Harnek Singh son of Narain Singh got executed<\/p>\n
            the Will regarding the land of their uncle Jagger Singh alias<\/p>\n
            Jagga son of Narain Singh in his own favour, but the<\/p>\n
            complainant and his brothers had also a right in that land of<\/p>\n
            Jagger Singh son of Narain Singh. The complainant party had<\/p>\n
            been opposing about this and due to that grudge. Harnek Singh<\/p>\n
            son of Narain Singh, Sat Pal Singh alias Juggnu son of Harnek<\/p>\n
            Singh, Jats, residents of village Namol, Jora Singh son of Sada<\/p>\n
            Singh, Mazbi , resident of Gujjer Pati, Namol and Kaka Singh<\/p>\n
            son of Magher Singh, resident of Main Patti, Namol, have<\/p>\n
            murdered Jeet Singh by causing injuries on his person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Above said statement of Mukand Singh (PW2) was recorded by<\/p>\n
ASI Baldev Singh (PW8) at 11.30 AM on October 5, 1991. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
formal FIR Ex. PD\/2 was recorded in Police Station Longowal at 12.50 PM<\/p>\n
on the above said date. Special report reached the concerned Magistrate at<\/p>\n
Sunam at 4.30 PM. In the meantime, Investigating Officer inspected the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence. Dead body of Jeet Singh was taken out from the<\/p>\n
borewell of electric motor of Anter Singh. After preparing inquest report
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
(Ex. PB) regarding dead body of Jeet Singh, it was sent to Civil Hospital,<\/p>\n
Sangrur, for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer took into<\/p>\n
his possession blood-stained earth from the spot, got prepared rough site<\/p>\n
plan Ex. PK, of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of the<\/p>\n
witnesses. Post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by<\/p>\n
Dr. K.C. Goyal (PW1) at 4.30 PM on October 5, 1991. Appellant Sat Pal<\/p>\n
Singh was arrested on November 7, 1991. On the basis of his disclosure<\/p>\n
statement, one Kulhari was recovered and taken into possession against<\/p>\n
recovery memo Ex. PH. Harnek Singh appellant was also arrested<\/p>\n
thereafter. On completing other formalities, final report was put in Court for<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n
             The appellants were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses and also<\/p>\n
brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied<\/p>\n
the same, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they led no<\/p>\n
evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, found them<\/p>\n
guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned in<\/p>\n
earlier part of this order.\n<\/p>\n
             Shri Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting<\/p>\n
and awarding sentence to the appellant. By making reference to the<\/p>\n
statement of PW2 Mukand Singh, brother of the deceased, and PW3<\/p>\n
Mohinder Singh, the alleged eye witnesses, he argued that conduct and<\/p>\n
behaviour of above said witnesses was doubtful. The prosecution has failed
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
to prove presence of both of them at the spot. He further argued that PW5<\/p>\n
Satgur Singh was not a person of means and had no relation with the<\/p>\n
appellants, as such there was no occasion for them to make any extra<\/p>\n
judicial confession before the above named witness. He further argued that<\/p>\n
there existed a large number of discrepancies so far as statements of the<\/p>\n
private witnesses and the Investigating Officer are concerned. He also<\/p>\n
argued that there was no motive with the appellants to commit murder of<\/p>\n
Jeet Singh, rather there were chances of the complainant party to involve the<\/p>\n
appellants in a false case. He further argued that weapon of offence was<\/p>\n
recovered from a place, which was open and accessible to all. He prayed<\/p>\n
that the appeal be allowed, judgment and order under challenge be set aside<\/p>\n
and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.<\/p>\n
             Prayer made by counsel for the appellant has vehemently been<\/p>\n
opposed by Shri D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. He, by<\/p>\n
making reference to the statements made by PW2 , PW3 and PW5, argued<\/p>\n
that the prosecution was successful in bringing home guilt to the appellant –<\/p>\n
accused. As per version of PW2 Mukand Singh, deceased was last seen with<\/p>\n
appellant Harnek Singh, who asked the deceased to accompany him to the<\/p>\n
electric motor of Anter Singh. This witness also heard noise, coming from<\/p>\n
the side of above said place, indicating that somebody was being beaten up.<\/p>\n
He further argued that the entire occurrence was seen by Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
(PW3), who had given clear sequence of events as to how Jeet Singh was<\/p>\n
killed. By stating that confessional statement made by the appellants before<\/p>\n
Satgur Singh is reliable, he prayed that the appeal having no substance be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Counsel for the parties heard.\n<\/p>\n
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
               Record reveals that post-mortem on the dead body was<\/p>\n
conducted by Dr. K.C. Goyal (PW1) on October 5, 1991, at 4.30 PM.<\/p>\n
Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:<\/p>\n
               “1) Incised wound 7 cm x 2.5 cm x bone and brain matter was<\/p>\n
               cut on right side of the skull, 3 cm above the right eye brow in<\/p>\n
               vertical direction. Frontal bone was fractured. On dissection<\/p>\n
               base of skull was fractured and brain matter was lacerated,<\/p>\n
               blood clots were present in the wound. Brain cavity was having<\/p>\n
               blood mixed with fluid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2) Incised wound 8 cm x 2.5 cm x nasal bone cut in vertical<\/p>\n
                 direction from the root of nose upto the upper lip in its<\/p>\n
                 middle. Only a tag of skin was attached to the lip.<\/p>\n
                 Underlying upper jaw was cut and maxillary bone was<\/p>\n
                 fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3) Incised wound .7 cm x 2 cm x maxillary bone deep just<\/p>\n
                 below the eyes in transverse direction cutting injury No. 2<\/p>\n
                 just above the bridge of nose. Blood clots were present in the<\/p>\n
                 mouth and max bone was fractured into pieces.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and<\/p>\n
hemorrhage due to injuries No. 1 to 3, which were ante mortem in nature<\/p>\n
and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. It is an admitted fact<\/p>\n
that dead body was lying in the borewell wherein water pump and pipes<\/p>\n
were fitted.\n<\/p>\n
               The deceased was last seen with appellant Harnek Singh by<\/p>\n
PW2 Mukand Singh, who happens to be real brother of the deceased. As per
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
case of the prosecution, Mukand Singh had gone to the farm-house of the<\/p>\n
family, to serve food to the deceased. In his presence, Harnek Singh<\/p>\n
appellant came there and told Jeet Singh deceased that he was being<\/p>\n
summoned by Satpal Singh, appellant No.1, Kaka Singh and Jora Singh at<\/p>\n
the motor of Anter Singh. Thereafter, deceased Jeet Singh, without taking<\/p>\n
food, left with Harnek Singh, appellant. After about half an hour, Mukand<\/p>\n
Singh heard shrieks of ‘Marta Marta’ from the side of motor of Anter Singh.<\/p>\n
Jeet Singh did not come back. This witness came back to his house, told the<\/p>\n
incident to his brother Sardara Singh (PW9), both did not go out in search<\/p>\n
of Jeet Singh, rather they kept on sleeping in their house.<\/p>\n
             Perusal of FIR and statement made by PW2 Mukand Singh<\/p>\n
indicates that he was an introduced witness. In his statement Ex. PD made<\/p>\n
to the police and deposition made in Court, this witness has categorically<\/p>\n
stated that he had gone to serve food to Jeet Singh deceased at about 8 PM,<\/p>\n
who on asking of Harnek Singh, appellant, left with him without taking<\/p>\n
food. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. K.C. Goyal<\/p>\n
(PW1), who has specifically stated that stomach contained digested food<\/p>\n
particles, small intestine contained chyme. In cross-examination, this<\/p>\n
witness has stated that the food leaves the stomach as soon as it is digested.<\/p>\n
In the stomach of the victim, there were digested food particles and their life<\/p>\n
in stomach could be two or three hours. Above said fact clearly indicates<\/p>\n
that death has taken place after the deceased had taken his meals.<\/p>\n
             Not only this, conduct of Mukand Singh (PW2) and Sardara<\/p>\n
Singh (PW9), who are real brothers of the deceased, was most unnatural.<\/p>\n
Mukand Singh on hearing noise from the side of Motor of Anter Singh,<\/p>\n
sheepishly came back to his house and told the entire story to his brother
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sardara Singh (PW9). Both made no attempt to intimate respectables of the<\/p>\n
village or went out in search of Jeet Singh, their brother. They have tried to<\/p>\n
over come this deficiency simply by stating that due to fear of terrorism in<\/p>\n
those days, they failed to go out in search of Jeet Singh. This plea appears<\/p>\n
to be an afterthought. PW2 Mukand Singh has stated that when he had gone<\/p>\n
to serve food to his brother(deceased), he had met many persons on his way.<\/p>\n
PW3 Mohinder Singh was also available at his farm house. No evidence has<\/p>\n
been brought on record to show that there was any fear of terrorism, in that<\/p>\n
area, at the relevant time. As per prosecution , occurrence has taken place at<\/p>\n
about 8\/ 8.30 PM. It was not too late to go out in search of a family member.<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer ASI Baldev Singh (PW8) has specifically stated that<\/p>\n
about 50 licensed arms were available in the village. PW2 and PW9 made<\/p>\n
no attempt to contact anyone having licensed arm. Above mentioned facts<\/p>\n
clearly indicate that an attempt was made to suppress the real genesis of the<\/p>\n
prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
             Mohinder Singh (PW3) also appears to be a procured witness.<\/p>\n
As per case of the prosecution, his land is situated next to the farm house of<\/p>\n
the deceased. He has seen the occurrence. In his statement, he has not made<\/p>\n
any mention of the presence of Kaka Singh and Jora Singh at the spot as<\/p>\n
was stated by PW2. This witness has stated that when the appellants<\/p>\n
attacked the deceased, he raised an alarm. He was threatened by the<\/p>\n
appellants. Out of fear, he went to Sunam, stayed there for whole of the<\/p>\n
night and made statement to the police on October 5, 1991, at 2 PM. It is not<\/p>\n
a case of this witness that he was chased by the appellant. It is very<\/p>\n
surprising that instead of going to the village, which is situated nearby, this<\/p>\n
witness preferred to go to a nearby town, i.e. Sunam. Police Station is
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
situated in Sunam. He made no attempt to inform the police regarding the<\/p>\n
occurrence in dispute. In the next morning, he made no effort to reach his<\/p>\n
village, at a distance of few KMs., at an early point of time. As per his<\/p>\n
version, dead body had already been sent for post-mortem examination at<\/p>\n
about 2 PM. Deposition of this witness does not inspire confidence. As such<\/p>\n
trial Court was not justified in relying upon the same.<\/p>\n
            As per case of the prosecution, appellants made confessional<\/p>\n
statement before Satgur Singh (PW5). Above named witness has stated that<\/p>\n
Satpal accused came to him on October 4, 1991, and disclosed that he had<\/p>\n
killed Jeet Singh. He requested PW5 to produce him before the police. In<\/p>\n
his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that on the next day,<\/p>\n
accused came to him at 7.30 AM and he produced both of them before the<\/p>\n
police. Deposition made by this witness falsifies story of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
As per admitted facts, Satpal Singh, appellant No. 1- accused was arrested<\/p>\n
on November 7, 1991, and appellant No. 2 Harnek Singh was arrested<\/p>\n
thereafter. The Investigating Officer has nowhere deposed that they were<\/p>\n
produced before him by Satgur Singh. This witness has admitted that a<\/p>\n
criminal case, for keeping illicit liquor, was registered against him. He is<\/p>\n
neither Sarpanch nor Panch. This witness has admitted that he has no<\/p>\n
special influence with the police officials. Under those circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
not expected that the appellant – accused would go to him and make a<\/p>\n
confessional statement. Facts on record and statement made by PW5 have<\/p>\n
not corroborated each other. The deposition made by this witness appears to<\/p>\n
be false.\n<\/p>\n
            Jora Singh, who was initially alleged as an accused, when FIR<\/p>\n
was recorded, was declared innocent. Thereafter, he was brought in the
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
witness box to support case of the prosecution. However, he resiled while<\/p>\n
deposing in Court. Furthermore, when we read statements of PW2 Mukand<\/p>\n
Singh and PW8 ASI Baldev Singh, it comes out on record that the witnesses<\/p>\n
are not deposing correct facts. PW2 Mukand Singh has stated that the<\/p>\n
utensils, in which he had taken food for the deceased, were left by him at his<\/p>\n
farm house. He has further stated that the police never visited the farm<\/p>\n
house whereas to the contrary, Investigating Officer – PW8 has deposed that<\/p>\n
he had gone to the farm house of the deceased. PW2 has deposed that<\/p>\n
moulds were available at the place of occurrence, but those were not lifted.<\/p>\n
Foot prints were also clearly visible. Investigating Officer has deposed to<\/p>\n
the contrary. A look at the inquest report Ex. PB indicates that the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, in the rough site plan, drawn in column No. 24 of the<\/p>\n
inquest report, has shown presence of one Gabber Singh as an eye witness.<\/p>\n
In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has failed to disclose on<\/p>\n
what ground and under what circumstances, he has shown the presence of<\/p>\n
Gabber Singh as an eye witness in the inquest report.<\/p>\n
             In this case, not only as above, the prosecution has miserably<\/p>\n
failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder of<\/p>\n
Jeet Singh. To know the facts, following pedigreetable will prove helpful:<\/p>\n
                     Narain Singh
\n_________________________I__________________________
\n      I              I                              I
\nHarnek Singh   Kaka Singh                     Jagger Singh
\n      1              1                ___           1_____
\nSatpal Singh   Mukand, Sardara, Baldev, Jit   (died issueless)
\n               Singh       Singh Singh Singh<\/p>\n
            Admittedly, Jagger Singh had executed a will, of his property,<\/p>\n
in favour of Harnek Singh. As per admitted position, Jagger Singh had died<\/p>\n
six years prior to the date of occurrence. Thereafter, his land was mutated in
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000                              -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
the name of Harnek Singh, appellant. Neither any criminal case nor any civil<\/p>\n
suit was filed by the complainant party against appellant Harnek Singh,<\/p>\n
agitating to get share in the property of Jagger Singh. As per admitted<\/p>\n
position, Harnek Singh was in possession of the property left by Jaggar<\/p>\n
Singh. Neither Mukand Singh nor Sardara Singh have stated that prior to<\/p>\n
the present occurrence, they had ever raised any demand with regard to their<\/p>\n
share in the property left by Jagger Singh. If that is so, we feel that there<\/p>\n
was no occasion for the appellants to kill the deceased. It appears that on<\/p>\n
account of transfer of property in favour of Harnek Singh, the complainant<\/p>\n
party was nursing a grudge against the appellants and there was possibility<\/p>\n
of the complainant party making an attempt to harm the appellants, which<\/p>\n
they did by involving them in a false case.\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecution in a critical manner. Entire judgment of conviction is based<\/p>\n
upon surmises and as such the same cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
            In view of facts, mentioned above, this appeal is allowed,<\/p>\n
judgment and order under challenge are set aside and Sat Pal Singh,<\/p>\n
appellant, is acquitted of the charge framed against him.<\/p>\n
            Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2 had died during pendency of the<\/p>\n
appeal. As such appeal filed by him stands abated.\n<\/p>\n
            Appellant No. 1 is on bail and as such there is no necessity to<\/p>\n
issue any release warrant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (JASBIR SINGH)
\n                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                     (JORA SINGH)
\n                                                          JUDGE
\nMarch 04, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
DKC
\n CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000   -13-<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2009 Parties Name Sat Pal Singh and another …APPELLANTS. VERSUS State of Punjab …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH […]<\/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-73200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 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\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-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=\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-14T11:27:04+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\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T11:27:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3384,\"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\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T11:27:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 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\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-14T11:27:04+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\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T11:27:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009"},"wordCount":3384,"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\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009","name":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T11:27:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parties-name-vs-state-of-punjab-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parties Name vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 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:\/\/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\/73200","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=73200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}