{"id":8305,"date":"2009-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-30T21:00:59","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T15:30:59","slug":"vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                          CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                              Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997\n\n                              Date of Decision: 6.3.2009\n                                    ***\n<\/pre>\n<p>Manohar &amp; others<br \/>\n                                                     .. Appellants<br \/>\n                              vs.\n<\/p>\n<p>State of Haryana<br \/>\n                                                     .. Respondent.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR\n\nPresent:-    Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate\n             for the appellants\n\n             Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana\n\n             Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate\n                        ***\n\nARVIND KUMAR, J:\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>             This shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997 and<br \/>\nCriminal Revision No. 537 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Criminal Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997 is directed against<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 21.2.1997\/26.2.1997, whereby out of the seven<br \/>\naccused, five accused, namely,Dharampal, Sunil, Daya Chand,Shamsher and<br \/>\nParkash (appellants herein) have been        convicted and sentenced for<br \/>\ncommission of offence under Section 148, 307 and 506 read with Section<br \/>\n149 IPC. Their two co-accused, namely, Manohar and Surta have been<br \/>\nacquitted of the charges. For offence under Section 148 IPC, all the five<br \/>\nappellants-accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<br \/>\nsix months; for offence under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC, to<br \/>\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200\/-<br \/>\nand in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one<br \/>\nmonth and under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to undergo<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000\/- and in<br \/>\ndefault of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for four<br \/>\nmonths.     All the substantive sentences were however, ordered to run<br \/>\nconcurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the appellants<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997                                       -2-<\/span><br \/>\nhave preferred the instant appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Criminal Revision No. 537 of 1997 by the complainant-Laxmi,<br \/>\ni.e. mother of injured Jai Bhagwan, has been preferred being aggrieved with<br \/>\nthe acquittal of Manohar and Surta and for enhancement of sentence<br \/>\nawarded to the accused-appellants besides imposition of heavy amount of<br \/>\nfine for being paid as compensation to injured Jai Bhagwan.\n<\/p>\n<p>            As per prosecution version, on 7.11.1991, the complainant,<br \/>\nLaxmi wife of Dharambir Singh, made statement before the police stating<br \/>\nthat at about 7.00 A.M. on that day when she had gone to the fields to bring<br \/>\nfodder, Jai Bhagwan, her Jaith (Husband&#8217;s brother) went to the fields of<br \/>\naccused Manohar in order to fix a fuse in the transformer. During that<br \/>\nperiod, all the accused rushed towards him. Accused,             Parkash and<br \/>\nShamsher were armed with Kulhari, accused Dharampal, Daya Chand and<br \/>\nSunil with Pharsas whereas accused Manohar and Surta with Lathis.<br \/>\nAccused Parkash and Shamsher gave Kulhari blows on the head of Jai<br \/>\nBhagwan while Manohar and Surta caught hold            of him.    Thereafter,<br \/>\naccused Dharampal, Daya Chand and Sunil caused injuries to Jai Bhagwan<br \/>\non his head and left hand with Pharsas. As a result thereof, Jai Bhagwan<br \/>\nbecame unconscious. On hearing noise, she(complainant) along with Ramu,<br \/>\nher Jeth (brother-in-law) and Smt. Bala, Devrani(husband&#8217;s brother&#8217;s wife),<br \/>\nalready coming towards the fields, reached the spot. The accused gave<br \/>\nslaps and fist blows to Ramu also and left the place while extending threats.<br \/>\nJai Bhagwan was then taken to General        Hospital, Gurgaon, by Ramu.<br \/>\nThe present FIR came to be registered on the statement of Laxmi<br \/>\nagainst the accused persons. Injured Jai Bhagwan was found to have been<br \/>\nreferred to Safderjang Hospital, New Delhi.         The police on getting<br \/>\ninformation that he was admitted in Kolmet Hospital Delhi, went there in<br \/>\norder to record his statement but he was declared unfit by the doctor<br \/>\nconcerned. Thereafter, the accused were arrested. Accused Shamsher and<br \/>\nParkash made disclosure statements before the police in furtherance of<br \/>\nwhich each of two got recovered a Kulhari. Seven injuries on the person of<br \/>\nJai Bhagwan were declared dangerous to life by the doctor.             After<br \/>\ncompletion of investigation of the case, challan was presented in Court. The<br \/>\nlearned trial Court on finding a prima-facie case under the afore-stated<br \/>\nsections, charge-sheeted the accused-appellants to which they pleaded not<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997                                        -3-<\/span><br \/>\nguilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>              To substantiate the charges against the appellants, the<br \/>\nprosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Pankaj Arora, PW-2 Dr. S.K. Sharma,<br \/>\nPW-3 Dharampal, Revenue Patwari, PW-4 Head Constable Ashok Kumar,<br \/>\nPW-5 Dr.S.K.Gogani, PW-6 Dr.S.P.Mandal, PW-7 Dr.Rajinder Parkash<br \/>\nArora, PW-8 Ramu, PW-9 Laxmi(complainant), PW-10 Jai Bhagwan<br \/>\n(injured) and PW-11 ASI Suraj Bhan, and closed its evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>              In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the<br \/>\nappellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication<br \/>\nin the case. However, Shamsher has come up the plea of self-defence. His<br \/>\nversion is that at about 9 A.M., Jai Bhagwan PW inflicted injuries to him<br \/>\nand in self-defence, he caused injuries to Jai Bhagwan and at that time, no<br \/>\nother person except him and Jai Bhagwan was present at the spot. In<br \/>\ndefence, they produced DW-1 Dr. B.M.Bhatnagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>              After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and<br \/>\nsentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, the instant<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>              I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also<br \/>\ngone through the record carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>              Counsel for the appellants has mainly contended that Shamsher<br \/>\nhad also received as many as 5 injuries on his person which were not<br \/>\nexplained by the complainant party and it would go to show that they had<br \/>\nnot come out with full truth and as such, the plea of self-defence, merits<br \/>\nacceptance.    The argument is not convincing.       Non-explanation of the<br \/>\ninjuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution case where<br \/>\ninjuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the<br \/>\nevidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so<br \/>\nprobable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs the effect of the<br \/>\nomission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries.            <a href=\"\/doc\/900679\/\">In<br \/>\nRamlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR<\/a> 1972 SC 2593, it has been held<br \/>\nthat the prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries<br \/>\nreceived by the accused persons. In Hare Krishna Singh and others v.<br \/>\nState of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 863, it was observed that the obligation of the<br \/>\nprosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same<br \/>\noccurrence may not arise in each and every case. In other words, it is not an<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997                                         -4-<\/span><br \/>\ninvariable rule that the prosecution has to explain the injuries sustained by<br \/>\nthe accused in the same occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of<br \/>\nthe prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of guilt of the accused<br \/>\nbeyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain<br \/>\ninjuries sustained by the accused will not arise. When the prosecution<br \/>\ncomes with a definite case that the offence has been committed by the<br \/>\naccused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly<br \/>\nnecessary for the prosecution to again explain how and under what<br \/>\ncircumstances the injuries have been inflicted on the person of the accused.<br \/>\nIt is more so when the injuries are simple or superficial          in nature.<br \/>\nSimilarly, in the present case, DW-1 Dr. B.M.Bhatnagar medico-legally<br \/>\nexamined Shamsher at 3 P.M. on the same day and he though no doubt<br \/>\nfound 5 injuries but all of them were superficial. With regard to one of the<br \/>\ninjuries, namely, injury No.3, it had been opined that it could be created by<br \/>\nfriendly hand and so much so, in the MLR, the probable duration of the<br \/>\ninjuries was also not given. In this background of the facts, trifle and<br \/>\nsuperficial injuries on the person of Shamsher are of no assistance to them<br \/>\nto substantiate the plea of self-defence and throw doubt on the veracity of<br \/>\nthe prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Counsel for the appellants has laid much stress that there has<br \/>\nbeen a delay of about 12 hours in lodging the FIR which is fatal, but this<br \/>\nargument is not tenable. The delay ipso facto is not fatal to the case of the<br \/>\nprosecution if it is explained satisfactorily.   Jai Bhagwan was seriously<br \/>\ninjured having number of injuries on his head. The natural emphasis of the<br \/>\nwitness was to provide adequate medical treatment to him. Injured in this<br \/>\ncase was firstly taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon, then to Safdarjang<br \/>\nHospital, Delhi, and then to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, and to Colonet<br \/>\nHospital on account of the fact that beds were not available in the said<br \/>\nhospital. In this process, if the FIR was not lodged immediately after the<br \/>\noccurrence, it certainly does not affect the prosecution case as much time<br \/>\nhad been utilized for getting proper treatment to Jai Bhagwan and it cannot<br \/>\nbe said that the witnesses had gained time for some ulterior motive.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Faced with this situation,      counsel for the appellants has<br \/>\ncontended that the FIR does not contain the entire details of the incident as<br \/>\nmuch as the sequence of the injuries caused by the accused. This argument<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997                                       -5-<\/span><br \/>\nagain is not tenable. The FIR need not contain the details of the occurrence<br \/>\nas if it were an encyclopaedia of the occurrence. Only the essential or broad<br \/>\npicture   need be stated in the FIR and all minute details need not be<br \/>\nmentioned therein. In the instant case, the names of the accused with their<br \/>\nrespective weapons and infliction of injuries by them on the person of Jai<br \/>\nBhagwan are duly mentioned. No doubt, the name of the eye-witness had<br \/>\nnot been mentioned in the Rapat Roznamcha dated 7.11.1991 entered by<br \/>\nPW-4 Constable Ashok Kumar but that may only be an omission and does<br \/>\nnot affect the case of the prosecution in any manner.       The case mainly<br \/>\nrests on the statement of PW-8 Ramu, PW-9 Laxmi(complainant) and PW-<br \/>\n10 Jai Bhagwan. Their statements are consistent as regards the appellants&#8217;<br \/>\ncarrying weapons in their hands and causing injuries to Jai Bhagwan. They<br \/>\nwere subjected to lengthy cross-examination. They stood firm to their stand<br \/>\nand nothing could be extracted which could benefit the defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>            It has been argued that as per statement of PW-8 Ramu, he<br \/>\nthroughout had accompanied injured Jai Bhagwan to various hospitals<br \/>\nincluding General Hospital, Gurgaon, where initially he was removed but as<br \/>\nper MLR, Exhibit PB, coupled with the statement of PW-2 Dr.S.K.Sharma,<br \/>\nJai Bhagwan in fact was brought by one Bhup Singh and this negatives the<br \/>\npresence of PW-8 Ramu at the spot. This argument is also not tenable for<br \/>\nthe reason that the doctor normally records the name of the person(s) who<br \/>\nare readily available with the injured at particular moment without<br \/>\nascertaining whether he\/they had witnessed the occurrence or not.     In this<br \/>\ncontext, reference may be made to a judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/630036\/\">B. Bhadriah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a> 1995<br \/>\nSupreme Court Cases (Crl.) 370,         wherein it has been observed that<br \/>\ncasual way of filling up the column in the medical certificate does not<br \/>\namount to recording a statement of the injured witness. Thus, the defence<br \/>\ncannot derive any benefit from it.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Counsel has also laid much stress that the police had not<br \/>\nrecorded the statement of Jai Bhagwan, injured, under Section 161 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nfor which there is every likelihood of the witness making an improvement,<br \/>\nbut there is no force in this contention as well. The statement of PW-11 SI<br \/>\nSuraj Bhan indicates that right from the beginning, Jai Bhagwan was either<br \/>\nunconscious or not fit to make statement. He had sought opinion of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997                                        -6-<\/span><br \/>\ndoctor on many occasions but on every occasion the doctor opined that he<br \/>\nwas not fit to make statement. Jai Bhagwan, injured, despite having been<br \/>\ndischarged from the hospital on 18.11.1991, was medically examined on<br \/>\n28.11.1991 in the private OPD by PW-5 Dr. S.K.Gogani, who found him<br \/>\ndrowsy and behaving abnormally and then he examined him on 10.12.1991<br \/>\nand even at that time, he was found to be confused and was not standing<br \/>\nproperly.      Challan in this case was presented on 19.12.1991, which<br \/>\nindicates that by the time the police had filed the challan, Jai Bhagwan was<br \/>\nnot in mental state to make statement. Even, PW-11 SI Suraj Bhan has<br \/>\nstated that during entire investigation, Jai Bhagwan injured was not found fit<br \/>\nto make statement. This led to non-recording of his statement under Section<br \/>\n161 Cr.P.C., for which no adverse inference can be drawn against the<br \/>\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Jai Bhagwan had 8 injuries on his person out of which 7<br \/>\ninjuries were on the head region and the same were kept under observation.<br \/>\nHowever, subsequently, PW-2 Dr.S.K.Sharma on the application of PW-11<br \/>\nSI Suraj Bhan, had opined that injuries No. 1 to 7 are dangerous to life.<br \/>\nPW-5 Dr.S.K.Gogani who also found fracture on the skull at 3 places,<br \/>\nopined that the injuries were serious in nature and were sufficient to cause<br \/>\ndeath in the normal course but for want of medical aid. As such, no stress<br \/>\ncan be laid by the counsel for the appellants that the offence does not fall<br \/>\nunder Section 307 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>                For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal, namely,<br \/>\nCrl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997, fails and is hereby dismissed.              The<br \/>\naccused-appellants are directed to immediately surrender before the Court of<br \/>\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, to undergo remainder of the sentence,<br \/>\nawarded above, as per law and in case of failure to do so, the CJM<br \/>\nconcerned shall procure their presence through coercive process.\n<\/p>\n<p>                As regards Criminal Revision No. 537 of 1997 preferred by<br \/>\nthe complainant, Laxmi, whereby challenge is to the acquittal of two<br \/>\naccused, namely, Manohar and Surta, and for enhancement of sentence to<br \/>\nthe appellants, the same is without any merit and the same too is hereby<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>March 6, 2009                                     ( ARVIND KUMAR )\nJS                                                      JUDGE\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                              Crl. Revision No. 537 of 1997\n\n                              Date of Decision: 6.3.2009\n                                    ***\nLaxmi\n                                                    .. Petitioner\n                              vs.\nManohar and others\n                                                   .. Respondents.\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate\n            for the petitioner\n\n            Mr. Dilbagh Singh, AAG Haryana\n\n            Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate\n                       ***\n\nARVIND KUMAR, J:\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>            For orders, see Criminal Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<pre>March 6, 2009                                  ( ARVIND KUMAR )\nJS                                                   JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court *** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 176-SB of 1997 Date of Decision: 6.3.2009 *** Manohar &amp; others .. Appellants vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent. CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate [&hellip;]<\/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-8305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T15:30:59+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T15:30:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2230,\"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\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\",\"name\":\"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T15:30:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 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":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T15:30:59+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T15:30:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009"},"wordCount":2230,"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\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009","name":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T15:30:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-state-of-haryana-on-6-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"*** vs State Of Haryana on 6 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\/8305","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=8305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}