{"id":76797,"date":"2008-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-22T02:26:21","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T20:56:21","slug":"jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                1\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n                              Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995\n                              Date of Decision : 4.11.2008\n\n\nJarnail Singh S\/o Nathi Ram                      ...Appellant\nR\/o Jathlana.\n\n                              Versus\n\nThe State of Haryana                             ....Respondent\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate,\n         for the appellant.\n\n         Mr. A.K.Jindal, AAG, Haryana,\n         for the respondent.\n\nSHAM SUNDER, J.\n<\/pre>\n
         This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated<\/p>\n
14.3.1995, and the order of sentence dated 15.3.1995, rendered by the<\/p>\n
Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide which it convicted the<\/p>\n
accused (now appellant), and sentenced him as under :<\/p>\n
\n\n Name of the accused      Offence for which        Sentence Awarded\n    (now appellant)           convicted\nJarnail Singh           376(g) IPC               RI for 10 years, and to\n                                                 pay a fine of Rs.200\/-,\n                                                 in default of payment\n                                                 of fine, to undergo\n                                                 another RI for 3\n                                                 months.\n                        366 IPC                  RI for 7 years, and to\n                                                 pay a fine of Rs.150\/-,\n                                                 in default of payment\n                                                 of fine, to undergo\n                                                 another RI for 3\n                                                 months\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                2<\/span>\n\n\n\n Name of the accused        Offence for which       Sentence Awarded\n     (now appellant)            convicted\n                          120-B IPC               RI for 7 years, and to\n                                                  pay a fine of RS.150\/-,\n                                                  in default of payment\n                                                  of fine, to undergo\n                                                  another RI for 3\n                                                  months.\n\n<\/pre>\n
            However, all the substantive sentences, were ordered to run<\/p>\n
concurrently.    Nanu, co-accused, was, however, declared proclaimed<\/p>\n
offender.\n<\/p>\n
2.          The facts, in brief, are that Jagdish Chander, father of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, and the complainant, is a resident of Village Jathlana, and is<\/p>\n
a labourer. He has got two daughters, and three sons. His elder daughter<\/p>\n
(the prosecutrix), was aged about 16 years, at the relevant time. On<\/p>\n
25.3.1993, as usual, Jagdish Chander went to sleep, in his drawing room,<\/p>\n
at about 10.00 PM. His wife Savitri Devi, alongwith the prosecutrix, and<\/p>\n
other children, went to sleep in the house. On 26.3.1993, at about 6.00<\/p>\n
AM, his wife told him, that the prosecutrix was missing, from the house,<\/p>\n
on the night intervening 25\/26.3.1993. Jarnail Singh, accused, was also<\/p>\n
found missing. The complainant expressed his suspicion, against Jarnail<\/p>\n
Singh, accused. He made a complaint, when the prosecutrix could not be<\/p>\n
traced, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered.<\/p>\n
3.          On 29.3.1993, the prosecutrix was recovered, from the custody<\/p>\n
of the accused, from the house of Shashi Bhan. She was brought back.<\/p>\n
The accused was arrested. The prosecutrix, and the accused were got<\/p>\n
medico-legally examined.      The statement of the prosecutrix, under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C., was also recorded by the Court of Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Jagadhri. After the completion of investigation, the accused
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
were challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.        On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate,<\/p>\n
the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to<\/p>\n
the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of<\/p>\n
Sessions, charge under Sections 376, 366 and 120-B IPC, was framed<\/p>\n
against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
4.        The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Kanta<\/p>\n
Dhankar (PW-1), Dr. Satnam Singh (PW-2), Moti Ram (PW-3), Satpal<\/p>\n
(PW-4), Tara Chand (PW-5), the prosecutrix (PW-6), O.P.Verma, JMIC,<\/p>\n
(PW-7), Jagdish Chander, father of the prosecutrix, (PW-8), and Sadhu<\/p>\n
Ram, SI (PW-9). Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State,<\/p>\n
closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.        The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was<\/p>\n
recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication.<\/p>\n
It was stated by him, that due to party faction, in the village, he was<\/p>\n
falsely involved, in this case. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in<\/p>\n
his defence.\n<\/p>\n
6.        After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record,<\/p>\n
the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated<\/p>\n
hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
7.        Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the<\/p>\n
order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed<\/p>\n
by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.        I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.<\/p>\n
9.        It is settled principle of Criminal jurisprudence, that the<\/p>\n
prosecution, is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to act on mere suspicion,<\/p>\n
conjectures or surmises or suspicious circumstances, to bring home the<\/p>\n
guilt to the accused. Reasonable doubt should not be stretched too far, to<\/p>\n
suspect everything so as to defeat the ends of justice. In Gurbachan<\/p>\n
Singh vs. Sat Pal AIR<\/a> 1990 Supreme Court 209, the principle of law,<\/p>\n
laid down, was to the effect, that reasonable doubt, is simply that degree<\/p>\n
of doubt, which could permit a reasonable and just man to come to a<\/p>\n
conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the<\/p>\n
nature of offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt, must not nurture fanciful doubts, and lingering<\/p>\n
suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made<\/p>\n
sterile, on the plea, that it is better to let hundred guilty escape, than<\/p>\n
punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to<\/p>\n
law. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anil Singh, AIR<\/a> 1988 Supreme<\/p>\n
Court 1998, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is<\/p>\n
necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial<\/p>\n
merely to see, that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to<\/p>\n
see that guilty man does not escape. One is as important, as the other.<\/p>\n
Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform.<\/p>\n
10.       Before touching the merits of the case, in the light of the<\/p>\n
evidence, on record, in the first instance, it must be stated, as to what<\/p>\n
approach, the Court should adopt, while evaluating the prosecution
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex related<\/p>\n
offence. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be<\/p>\n
corroborated in material particulars, before the Court bases a conviction<\/p>\n
on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save<\/p>\n
the rarest of rare, the Court should look for corroboration before acting<\/p>\n
on the evidence of the prosecutrix? Let us see, if the Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
provides the clue to this riddle. Under the Evidence Act, evidence means<\/p>\n
and includes all statements, which the Court permits or requires to be<\/p>\n
made before it, by the witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact, under<\/p>\n
inquiry. Under Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts, except the<\/p>\n
contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then<\/p>\n
illustrates, as to who may give oral evidence. According to that Section,<\/p>\n
all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they<\/p>\n
are prevented from understanding the questions, put to them, or from<\/p>\n
giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old<\/p>\n
age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same<\/p>\n
kind. Even, in the case of an accomplice, Section 133 provides that<\/p>\n
he\/she shall be a competent witness, against an accused person, and the<\/p>\n
conviction is not illegal, merely because it          proceeds upon the<\/p>\n
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) to<\/p>\n
Section 114, which lays down a rule of practice, says that the Court may<\/p>\n
presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is<\/p>\n
corroborated, in material particulars. Thus, under Section 133, which<\/p>\n
lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness, and the<\/p>\n
conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence, is not illegal,<\/p>\n
although in view of Section 114 illustration (b), the Courts do not, as a
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
matter of practice, do so, and look for corroboration, in material<\/p>\n
particulars. This is the conjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114 illustration<\/p>\n
(b).\n<\/p>\n
10-A.     In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand<\/p>\n
Jain<\/a> with Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Chandraprakash<\/p>\n
Kewalchand Jain & Anr. 1990(2) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 228<\/p>\n
(SC), it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be on par<\/p>\n
          with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the<\/p>\n
          crime. The evidence Act nowhere says that her<\/p>\n
          evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated<\/p>\n
          in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a<\/p>\n
          competent witness under Section 118 and her<\/p>\n
          evidence must receive the same weight as it attached<\/p>\n
          to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same<\/p>\n
          degree of care and caution must atach in the<\/p>\n
          evaluation of her evidence, as in the case of an<\/p>\n
          injured complainant or witness and no more. What<\/p>\n
          is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and<\/p>\n
          conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the<\/p>\n
          evidence of a person, who is interested          in the<\/p>\n
          outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court<\/p>\n
          keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act<\/p>\n
          on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of<\/p>\n
          law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
          similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
         required it to look for corroboration. If for the same<\/p>\n
         reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance<\/p>\n
         on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for<\/p>\n
         evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony<\/p>\n
         short of corroboration required in the case of an<\/p>\n
         accomplice. The nature of evidence to lend<\/p>\n
         assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must<\/p>\n
         necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
         each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full<\/p>\n
         understanding the Court is entitled to base a<\/p>\n
         conviction on her evidence        unless the same is<\/p>\n
         shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the<\/p>\n
         totality of the circumstances appearing on the record<\/p>\n
         of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not<\/p>\n
         have a strong motive to falsely    involve the person<\/p>\n
         charged, the Court should ordinarily have no<\/p>\n
         hesitation, in accepting her evidence. We have,<\/p>\n
         therefore, no doubt, in our minds, that ordinarily the<\/p>\n
         evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack<\/p>\n
         understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof<\/p>\n
         required must not be higher than is expected of an<\/p>\n
         injured witness. For the above reasons we think that<\/p>\n
         exception has rightly been taken to the approach of<\/p>\n
         the High Court as is reflected in the following<\/p>\n
         passage:-<\/p>\n
           “It is only, in the rarest of rare cases if the
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
           Court finds that the testimony          of the<\/p>\n
           prosecutrix is so trustworthy truthful and<\/p>\n
           reliable that other corroboration may not be<\/p>\n
           necessary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we<\/p>\n
         may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily, the<\/p>\n
         evidence of prosecutrix, must carry the same weight<\/p>\n
         as is attached to an injured person, who is a victim<\/p>\n
         of violence, unless there are special circumstances<\/p>\n
         which call for greater caution, in which case it<\/p>\n
         would be safe to act on her testimony, if there is<\/p>\n
         independent evidence lending assurance to her<\/p>\n
         accusation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   We think it proper, having regard to the<\/p>\n
         increase in the number of sex-violation cases in the<\/p>\n
         recent past, particularly cases of molestation and<\/p>\n
         rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists,<\/p>\n
         that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of<\/p>\n
         sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in<\/p>\n
         material particulars, except in the rarest of rare<\/p>\n
         cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest<\/p>\n
         of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of<\/p>\n
         the lust of another with an accomplice to crime and<\/p>\n
         thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding<\/p>\n
         insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe<\/p>\n
         would not be believed unless it is corroborated in
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
         material particulars in the case of an accomplice to a<\/p>\n
         crime. Ours is a conservative society where it<\/p>\n
         concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive<\/p>\n
         society as in some of the Western and European<\/p>\n
         countries. Our standard of decency and morality in<\/p>\n
         public life is not the same as in those countries. It is,<\/p>\n
         however, evident that respect for womanhood, in<\/p>\n
         our country is on active and cases of molestation<\/p>\n
         and rape are steadily growing. Indian woman is now<\/p>\n
         required to suffer indignities     in different forms.<\/p>\n
         From lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation<\/p>\n
         to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be<\/p>\n
         promoted       and protected only if we deal strictly<\/p>\n
         with those, who violate the social norms. The<\/p>\n
         standard of proof to be required by the Court in such<\/p>\n
         cases, must take into account the fact that such<\/p>\n
         crimes are generally committed on the sly and very<\/p>\n
         rarely direct evidence of a person other than the<\/p>\n
         prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise<\/p>\n
         that ordinarily woman, more so a young girl, will<\/p>\n
         not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge<\/p>\n
         concerning her chastity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    It is time to recall the observation of this<\/p>\n
         Court made not so far back in Bhaiwaca Bhognibhai<\/p>\n
         Hirjinbhai:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In the Indian setting refusal to act on
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
              the testimony of a victim of sexual<\/p>\n
              assault       in   the     absence      of<\/p>\n
              corroboration as a rule, is a doing<\/p>\n
              insult to injury.        Why should the<\/p>\n
              evidence of the girl or the woman<\/p>\n
              who complains of rape or sexual<\/p>\n
              molestation be viewed with the aid<\/p>\n
              of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged<\/p>\n
              with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n              To do so is to justify the charge of<\/p>\n
              male      chauvinism       in   a     male<\/p>\n
              dominated society. We must analyse<\/p>\n
              the argument in support of the need<\/p>\n
              for corroboration and subject it to<\/p>\n
              relentless and remorseless cross-<\/p>\n
              examination. And we must do so<\/p>\n
              with      a   logical,    and   not     an<\/p>\n
              opinionated eye in the light of<\/p>\n
              probabilities with our feet firmly<\/p>\n
              planted on the soil of India and with<\/p>\n
              our eyes focussed on the Indian<\/p>\n
              horizon. We must not be swept off<\/p>\n
              the feet by the approach, made in the<\/p>\n
              Western world which has its own<\/p>\n
              social milieu , its own permissive<\/p>\n
              values, and its own code of life.
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
              Corroboration may, be considered<\/p>\n
              essential to establish a sexual offence<\/p>\n
              in the backdrop of the social ecology<\/p>\n
              of the Western World. It is wholly<\/p>\n
              unnecessary to import            the said<\/p>\n
              concept on a turn-Key basis and to<\/p>\n
              transplant     it on the Indian soil<\/p>\n
              regardless of the altogether different<\/p>\n
              atmosphere,         attitudes,     mores,<\/p>\n
              responses of the Indian Society and<\/p>\n
              its profile. The identities of the two<\/p>\n
              worlds are different. The solution of<\/p>\n
              problems      therefore,     cannot     be<\/p>\n
              identical.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Further this Court said;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Without the fear of making two wide<\/p>\n
              a statement or of over-stating the<\/p>\n
              case it can be said that rarely will a<\/p>\n
              girl or a woman in India false<\/p>\n
              allegations of sexual assault…. The<\/p>\n
              statement is generally true in the<\/p>\n
              context of the urban as also rural<\/p>\n
              society. It is also     by the and large<\/p>\n
              true   in     the     context    of    the<\/p>\n
              sophisticated, not so sophisticated,<\/p>\n
              and unsophisticated society.          Only
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
              very rarely can one conceivably<\/p>\n
              come across an exception or to and<\/p>\n
              that too possibly from amongst the<\/p>\n
              urban elites. Because (1). A girl or a<\/p>\n
              woman in the tradition bound non-<\/p>\n
              permissive society of India would be<\/p>\n
              extremely reluctant even to admit<\/p>\n
              that any incident which is likely to<\/p>\n
              reflect on her chastity had ever<\/p>\n
              occurred.      (2)    She     would   be<\/p>\n
              conscious of the danger of being<\/p>\n
              ostracised by the society or being<\/p>\n
              looked down by the society including<\/p>\n
              by   her    own      family    members,<\/p>\n
              relatives, friends and neighbours. (3)<\/p>\n
              She would have to brave the whole<\/p>\n
              world. (4) She would have to brave<\/p>\n
              the whole world. (4) she would face<\/p>\n
              the risk of losing the love and respect<\/p>\n
              of her own husband and near<\/p>\n
              relatives, and of her matrimonial<\/p>\n
              home and happiness being shattered.<\/p>\n
              (5) If she is unmarried she would<\/p>\n
              apprehend that it would be difficult<\/p>\n
              to secure an alliance with a suitable<\/p>\n
              match from a respectable or an
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
              acceptable family.        (6) It would<\/p>\n
              almost     inevitably     and      almost<\/p>\n
              invariably result in mental torture<\/p>\n
              and suffering to herself. (7) The fear<\/p>\n
              of being taunted by others will<\/p>\n
              always haunt her. (8) She would feel<\/p>\n
              extremely embarrassed in relating the<\/p>\n
              incident    to   others    being    over<\/p>\n
              powered by a feeling of shame on<\/p>\n
              account of the upbringing in a<\/p>\n
              tradition bound society whereby and<\/p>\n
              large sex is taboo. (9) The natural<\/p>\n
              inclination would be to avoid giving<\/p>\n
              publicity to the incident lest the<\/p>\n
              family name and family honour is<\/p>\n
              brought into controversy. (10) The<\/p>\n
              parents of an unmarried girl as also<\/p>\n
              the husband and members of the<\/p>\n
              husband’s family of a married woman<\/p>\n
              would also more often than not, want<\/p>\n
              to avoid publicity on account of the<\/p>\n
              fear of social stigma on the family<\/p>\n
              name and family honour. (11) The<\/p>\n
              fear of the victim herself being<\/p>\n
              considered to the promiscuous or in<\/p>\n
              some       way responsible for the
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
                incident regardless of her innocence.<\/p>\n
                (12)    The     reluctance   to     face<\/p>\n
                interrogation     by      investigating<\/p>\n
                agency, to face the Court to face the<\/p>\n
                cross-examination, by Counsel for<\/p>\n
                the culprit, and the risk of being<\/p>\n
                disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.       Adverting to the facts of the instant case, now let us see, as to<\/p>\n
whether, the prosecution was able to successfully prove, that the accused<\/p>\n
committed rape with the prosecutrix, beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The brief narration of the evidence produced by the prosecution is, thus,<\/p>\n
required to be made. The prosecutrix, appeared as PW-6. She stated that<\/p>\n
on 9.11.1994, the date on which she deposed in the Court, she was aged<\/p>\n
about 17 years. It was stated by her, that on 25.3.1993, at about 11.00<\/p>\n
PM, she came outside the house for urination, in the street. Jarnail Singh,<\/p>\n
and three other persons came, picked her up, and took her away to the<\/p>\n
fields, from the street. Thereafter, she was taken away, in a tanker,<\/p>\n
towards Raipur side in Uttar Pradesh. She further stated that Jarnail<\/p>\n
Singh, and his companions, committed rape with her. On 26.3.1993, she<\/p>\n
was recovered from Raipur, by the Police, from the custody of the<\/p>\n
accused. At that time, Moti Ram, Omi Lal, her uncle, and Jagmal were<\/p>\n
with the Police. She was put such questions, as are put, during the course<\/p>\n
of examination, by the Public Prosecutor for the State, with the<\/p>\n
permission of the Court, as she was making statement, contradictory to<\/p>\n
the one, made by her earlier.          During the course of such cross-<\/p>\n
examination, she admitted that allurement was given by the accused, to
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
her. She also admitted that she was taken to Raipur, and was kept in the<\/p>\n
house of Shashi Bhan.      Jagdish Chander, father of the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
(PW-8), proved the application, Ex.PO, moved by him, to the Police, on<\/p>\n
the basis whereof, FIR was recorded. He also supported the statement of<\/p>\n
the prosecutrix, to a large extent. The statement of the prosecutrix, was<\/p>\n
duly corroborated by Dr. Kanta Dhankar (PW-1), who medico-legally<\/p>\n
examined her on 29.3.1993, at 3.00 PM. She stated that no blood or<\/p>\n
seminal stain, was seen with naked eye examination. The pubic hair were<\/p>\n
present, with no blood, or seminal stain. No mark of injury was seen, on<\/p>\n
external genitalia or vagina.    She found hymen of the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
ruptured, and vagina admitting two three fingers easily. The clothes of<\/p>\n
the prosecutrix, as also swabs and pubic hair, were sent to the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory, to find out, as to whether, there was any semen, and<\/p>\n
blood stain, thereon. It is evident from, Ex.PL, report of the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory, that human semen was detected on trouser (salwar),<\/p>\n
pubic hair, and under-wear of the prosecutrix. The trouser was also found<\/p>\n
stained with a few medium and small blod stains. From, Ex.PL\/1, the<\/p>\n
report of the Serologist, it was found that the origin of blood on the<\/p>\n
trouser (salwar) of the prosecutrix, was human. The statement of Dr.<\/p>\n
Kanta Dhankar (PW-1), therefore, corroborated the ocular version of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, that the rape was committed with her. The prosecutrix, and<\/p>\n
Jagdish Chander, her father, were thoroughly cross-examined, but<\/p>\n
nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which<\/p>\n
may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touch-stone of<\/p>\n
all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. No doubt,<\/p>\n
some minor discrepancies, and contradictions, occurred in their
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
statements, but the same did not affect the merits of the case, as they in<\/p>\n
one voice deposed with regard to the occurrence. Even otherwise, there<\/p>\n
was no reason, on the part of the prosecutrix, and her father, to depose<\/p>\n
falsely. The prosecutrix at the relevant time, was below 16 years of age,<\/p>\n
as would be duly discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. Before lodging<\/p>\n
the report, she and her parents must have thought 100 times, as the<\/p>\n
honour of an unmarried minor girl was involved.         They must have<\/p>\n
thought that if the allegations, were proved to be false, then the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, as also her entire family, shall be looked down upon in the<\/p>\n
society. They must have thought, in that event, they will be ostracized<\/p>\n
from the society. They must have also given a thought to the factum, that,<\/p>\n
in case, the allegations were found to be untrue, then the chances of the<\/p>\n
marriage of the prosecutrix, would be very bleak. No minor unmarried<\/p>\n
girl, would stake her honour, by making false allegations, against the<\/p>\n
accused, that he committed rape with her.          The evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, duly corroborated by Jagdish Chander, her father, and Dr.<\/p>\n
Kanta Dhankar, as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory,<\/p>\n
was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy, by<\/p>\n
the trial Court. On indepth scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, this Court also comes to the same conclusion. The trial Court<\/p>\n
was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused committed<\/p>\n
rape with the prosecutrix.\n<\/p>\n
12.       The next question, that arises for consideration, is as to what<\/p>\n
was the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence. Ex.PG, is the<\/p>\n
School Leaving Certificate, of the prosecutrix.     This certificate, was<\/p>\n
proved by Satpal, Headmaster, Government High School, Jathlana. He
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that, as per the record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix, is<\/p>\n
15.5.1977. This certificate was prepared, on the basis of the record,<\/p>\n
maintained by the officials of the School, in the due discharge of their<\/p>\n
official duties.   This certificate, therefore, carried a presumption of<\/p>\n
correctness. No evidence was led to prove that this certificate was, in any<\/p>\n
way, incorrect. Even further corroboration to this certificate, was<\/p>\n
provided from the medico-legal report, wherein the age of the prosecutrix<\/p>\n
was written as 15 years. Even the prosecutrix, when she deposed in the<\/p>\n
Court, in the year 1994, stated her age as 16\/17 years. In the absence of<\/p>\n
any other documentary evidence, to the contrary, the certificate Ex.PG,<\/p>\n
could be said to be conclusive, to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Even<\/p>\n
if, it is taken that the occular evidence is contradictory, with regard to the<\/p>\n
age of the prosecutrix, that hardly matters, in the face of the certificate,<\/p>\n
Ex.PG. Since, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, when she was<\/p>\n
kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with an intent to<\/p>\n
force her to sexual intercourse, the consent or no consent of the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix was of no significance.\n<\/p>\n
13.       The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that no<\/p>\n
offence, punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, was made out,<\/p>\n
and, as such, the trial Court, was wrong in recording conviction, of the<\/p>\n
accused, for that offence.      The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The prosecutrix,<\/p>\n
in clear-cut terms, in her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as also in<\/p>\n
her statement, made in the Court, stated that the accused alongwith his<\/p>\n
three companions, forcibly took her away, and committed rape with her.<\/p>\n
Nanu Ram, one of the accused, has already been declared Proclaimed
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
Offender, as is evident from the record. It means that there was more<\/p>\n
than one person, who committed rape with the prosecutrix. Not only this,<\/p>\n
for attracting the provisions of Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, it is not<\/p>\n
necessary that all the accused, should commit rape with the prosecutrix.<\/p>\n
Even if, one accused commits rape with the prosecutrix, and the others<\/p>\n
just stand by, they can also be held liable, for the offence, punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The trial Court was, thus, right in<\/p>\n
recording conviction, under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.               The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.       It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
prosecurtix remained with the accused for 4 days. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that it, therefore, could be said to be a case of consent. The submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.<\/p>\n
It has been held above, that the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence, was below 16 years. She was, thus, minor. Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, her consent or no consent was hardly of any consequence.<\/p>\n
Even if, it is assumed that she was above 16 years of age, the mere fact<\/p>\n
that the accused after alluring her took her away, to some other place, and<\/p>\n
he alongwith his co-accused, committed rape with her, did not mean that<\/p>\n
the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Even, no such plea was taken up<\/p>\n
by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, he cannot set up the plea of consent, at this belated stage.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit,<\/p>\n
must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15.       It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecutrix, made three contradictory statements. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that since, she made shifting statements, no reliance could be placed, on<\/p>\n
the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,<\/p>\n
does not appear to be correct. The prosecutrix, in her statement, under<\/p>\n
Section 164 Cr.P.C., as also in her statement, in the Court, in clear-cut<\/p>\n
terms, stated that Jarnail Singh, accused, and his companions committed<\/p>\n
rape with her.      No doubt, there are certain contradictions, in her<\/p>\n
statement, made in the Court, viz-a-viz her statement, under Section 164<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., with regard to the minor details, relating to ancillary matters.<\/p>\n
The evidence of the prosecutrix, with regard to the subtratum of the case,<\/p>\n
is not contradictory, in any manner. If, on certain points, which were<\/p>\n
insignificant and irrelevant, her statements were contradictory, that did<\/p>\n
not affect the very fabric of the case. The submission of the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
16.         It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that<\/p>\n
Jagdish Chander, (PW-8), father of the prosecutrix, in his statement,<\/p>\n
before the Police, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered, stated that<\/p>\n
his daughter took away Rs.3000\/-. He further submitted that, under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, it could be said that the prosecutrix herself accompanied<\/p>\n
Jarnail Singh, accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
in this regard, does not appear to be correct. During the course of cross-<\/p>\n
examination, it was stated by Jagdish Chander, that it was wrong to<\/p>\n
suggest that her daughter took away Rs.3000\/- from the house, and also<\/p>\n
took away Jarnail Singh, accused, with her, in order to perform marriage,<\/p>\n
with him. He voluntarily stated that a sum of Rs.3000\/-, which he had
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                20<\/span><\/p>\n
mentioned, in his statement, before the Police, was recovered<\/p>\n
subsequently, by his wife, from the house itself. He further stated that he<\/p>\n
made a mention of this fact, in his statement, before the Police, when he<\/p>\n
did not find this amount, at the place, where he had kept the same. When<\/p>\n
the evidence of Jagdish Chander, is read as a whole, then only one and<\/p>\n
one conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that, he did not state that his<\/p>\n
daughter left the house of her own, and took away the amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.3000\/-. No doubt, in the first instance, in his statement, before the<\/p>\n
Police, he made such a mention, but when he appeared, in the Court, he<\/p>\n
corrected the same, when he found the amount of RS.3000\/- in his house.<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
17.       It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the<\/p>\n
appellant has been facing the criminal proceedings, since 1993, and his<\/p>\n
sentence be reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in<\/p>\n
this regard, does not appear to be correct. The accused by kidnapping the<\/p>\n
prosecutrix, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with an intent to<\/p>\n
induce her, to submit her to sexual intercourse, and committing rape with<\/p>\n
her, caused a permanent stigma, on her life. The act of commission of<\/p>\n
rape, by the accused, with the prosecutrix, can be described as depraved<\/p>\n
and beastly. On account of the rise in crime, against women, no leniency<\/p>\n
is required to be shown, to the appellant, in the matter of sentence. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
18.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
19.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of
\n Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995                                 21<\/span><\/p>\n
conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are<\/p>\n
based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The<\/p>\n
same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.<\/p>\n
20.         For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
The judgment of conviction dated 14.3.1995, and the order of sentence<\/p>\n
dated 15.3.1995, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds,<\/p>\n
shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, shall take<\/p>\n
necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, and<\/p>\n
compliance report be sent to this Court, within a period of one month,<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.11.2008                                         (SHAM SUNDER)\nVimal                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008 Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 Date of Decision : 4.11.2008 Jarnail Singh S\/o Nathi Ram …Appellant R\/o Jathlana. Versus The State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 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\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-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=\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-21T20:56:21+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T20:56:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4894,\"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\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T20:56:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 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":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 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\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-21T20:56:21+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T20:56:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008"},"wordCount":4894,"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\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008","name":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T20:56:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jarnail-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jarnail Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 4 November, 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\/76797","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=76797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}