{"id":91241,"date":"2009-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-16T17:19:36","modified_gmt":"2017-09-16T11:49:36","slug":"rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                             Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998\n                             Date of decision : January 07, 2009\n\n                             *****\n\nRajrup and others\n                                               ............Appellants\n\n\nVersus\n\n\nState of Haryana\n                                                ...........Respondents\n\n                             *****\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\n                             *****\n\nPresent:    Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate for the appellants.\n\n            Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General,\n            Haryana.\n                           *****\nJORA SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Rajrup alias Babli, Rajpal alias Palu sons of Kanwar Lal<\/p>\n
and Kanwar Lal son of Ram Dhan ( since deceased) through this<\/p>\n
instant    appeal   have   impugned     the   judgment\/order       dated<\/p>\n
31.10.1998\/2.11.1998 respectively rendered by Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.6 of 12.1.1993 in case FIR<\/p>\n
No.171 dated 22.9.1992 under Sections 302\/325\/323\/34 IPC, Police<\/p>\n
Station Beri, whereby Rajrup, Rajpal and Kanwar Lal were convicted<\/p>\n
under Sections 302\/325\/323\/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
imprisonment as under:\n<\/p>\n
            (1)Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000\/- each
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
              under Sections 302\/34 IPC. In default of payment of<\/p>\n
              fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one<\/p>\n
              year.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500\/- each under<\/p>\n
              Sections 323\/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to<\/p>\n
              undergo further imprisonment for three months.<\/p>\n
           (3)RI for three years and a fine of Rs.2000\/- each under<\/p>\n
              Sections 325\/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to<\/p>\n
              undergo further imprisonment for six months.<\/p>\n
           All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
           During the pendency of trial, Rajender Singh had expired.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
During the pendency of appeal, Kanwar Lal, one of the appellants<\/p>\n
had also expired.\n<\/p>\n
           Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sube Singh son of Ram<\/p>\n
Dhan, resident of Village Gwalison lodged report with the police to<\/p>\n
the effect that he had four sons and one daughter. Three sons had<\/p>\n
already expired. Fourth son namely, Ranbir Singh was residing with<\/p>\n
his family at the house of his in-laws at village Rawaldi for the last 20<\/p>\n
years. Sube Singh-complainant used to live with his daughter-in-law,<\/p>\n
Shanti widow of Dharambir along with her children. His daughter<\/p>\n
Prem had come to his house from the house of her in-laws and was<\/p>\n
staying with him. At about 10:00\/11:00 A.M, Ranbir Singh came and<\/p>\n
reported that death of a relation has taken place at village Kharkhari<\/p>\n
and in that connection he has come to the house of the complainant.<\/p>\n
On 25.9.1992, complainant-party is to visit village Kharkhari for<\/p>\n
paying condolence. Kanwar Lal is the brother of the complainant.
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
Six months ago, Kanwar Lal and his sons had a dispute qua water<\/p>\n
and passage of land with the complainant-party. But the dispute was<\/p>\n
settled in the Panchayat. Ranbir was also present at the time of<\/p>\n
compromise. Even after the compromise, Kanwar Lal and his sons<\/p>\n
continued to harass the complainant-party. At 3:00 P.M, he along<\/p>\n
with his son Ranbir Singh was going towards the bus stand of the<\/p>\n
village because Ranbir Singh was to go back to village Rawaldi.<\/p>\n
They were present near the shop of Joravar. Kanwar Lal, Rajinder<\/p>\n
Pal, Rajrup and Rajpal came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was<\/p>\n
armed with an iron pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was<\/p>\n
holding a pharsa and Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong.<\/p>\n
Rajrup gave a lalkara to catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute<\/p>\n
regarding water and passage of land because Ranbir whenever<\/p>\n
visited the village then raised a dispute. Rajrup gave three blows<\/p>\n
with a pharsa on the head of Ranbir.      Rajinder gave a jaili blow<\/p>\n
thrustwise on the back of Ranbir and again a jaili blow on the leg of<\/p>\n
Ranbir.   Kanwar Lal gave blow with a steel pipe on the back of<\/p>\n
Ranbir. Rajpal had waived the jaili and gave a lathiwise blow on the<\/p>\n
left thigh of Ranbir. Ranbir fell down on the ground. Complainant<\/p>\n
tried to intervene and raised an alarm. Then Rajinder gave jaili blow<\/p>\n
on the head and second blow on the thigh of the complainant.<\/p>\n
Kanwar Lal gave blows with a pipe to the complainant. Rajpal gave<\/p>\n
four jaili blows to the complainant. Raula was raised. Daughter of<\/p>\n
the complainant, Prem and his grandchildren Sunil, Jai Pal and Vijay<\/p>\n
also came to the spot. Sunil was also injured with a pipe by Kanwar<\/p>\n
Lal. After that accused had fled away from the spot. Injured was
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
shifted to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar on the tractor of Saheb Singh.<\/p>\n
Ranbir was declared dead by the doctor.        Complainant and his<\/p>\n
grand-daughter were medico-legally examined.<\/p>\n
             SHO, Police Station Jhajjar informed PS Beri regarding<\/p>\n
death of Ranbir Singh. On receipt of message, Brij Lal, ASI along<\/p>\n
with other police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. Dead body<\/p>\n
of Ranbir was lying in the emergency ward. Sube Singh was lying<\/p>\n
admitted in the emergency ward. After obtaining opinion from the<\/p>\n
doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Statement<\/p>\n
of Sube Singh was recorded.         Statement was read over and<\/p>\n
explained to him, who had thumb marked the same in token of its<\/p>\n
correctness. The statement was sent to police Station on the basis<\/p>\n
of which formal FIR under Sections 302\/323\/34 IPC was registered.<\/p>\n
Inquest report was prepared by ASI, Brij Lal. Application was moved<\/p>\n
for post mortem examination of the dead body of Ranbir Singh. After<\/p>\n
that investigation of the case was handed over to Shish Ram-<\/p>\n
Inspector.    Inspector Shish Ram along with the police officials<\/p>\n
including, ASI, Brij Lal and others had gone to the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. But due to darkness and night time place of occurrence<\/p>\n
could not be inspected. One constable was deputed to guard the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence.    Inspector along with party had gone to the<\/p>\n
house of the complainant.     Statement of Prem daughter of Sube<\/p>\n
Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site<\/p>\n
plan. Blood stained earth was lifted and the same was made into a<\/p>\n
parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `SR’ and was taken
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
into possession vide memo attested by witnesses. Seal after its use<\/p>\n
was handed over to PW-Ramesh.        Statements of Jai Pal, Vijay,<\/p>\n
Sumer and Ramesh were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Sunil was also sent to hospital for medico legal examination.<\/p>\n
Inspector Shish Ram was present at Jahajgarh Chowk on 23.9.92.<\/p>\n
Constable Raj Karan had produced the sealed parcel containing the<\/p>\n
clothes worn by the deceased. Sealed parcel was taken into police<\/p>\n
possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.        On<\/p>\n
return to the police station, case property was deposited with the<\/p>\n
MHC.     On 27.9.1992, Inspector Shish Ram was present in the<\/p>\n
revenue estate of Village Jhajjar.   There he    received a secret<\/p>\n
information that Kanwar Lal, Rajpal, Rajender and Rajrup are present<\/p>\n
at bus-stand Jhajjar. Raid was conducted then the accused were<\/p>\n
arrested from the Bus stand of Jhajjar. On 28.9.92, accused were<\/p>\n
interrogated separately regarding the weapons of offence in the<\/p>\n
presence of Dharambir and Rati Ram.          In pursuance of the<\/p>\n
disclosure statement suffered by Kanwar Lal, an iron pipe was<\/p>\n
recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the pipe was prepared<\/p>\n
and the pipe was taken into police possession after making into a<\/p>\n
sealed parcel.\n<\/p>\n
           On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajpal accused suffered<\/p>\n
disclosure statement.   As per disclosure statement got recovered<\/p>\n
double pronged jaili from the specified place. Recovered weapon<\/p>\n
was sealed with the seal bearing impression SR and the sealed<\/p>\n
parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo<\/p>\n
attested by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
             On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajrup was also<\/p>\n
interrogated then he suffered a disclosure statement.           As per<\/p>\n
disclosure statement suffered by accused, pharsa was recovered<\/p>\n
from the specified place. Sketch of the pharsa was prepared and the<\/p>\n
recovered weapon was taken into police possession vide separate<\/p>\n
memo attested by the witnesses. Rajinder accused also suffered<\/p>\n
disclosure statement and as per disclosure statement got recovered<\/p>\n
single prong jaili from the specified place. Sketch of the weapon was<\/p>\n
prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide<\/p>\n
separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police<\/p>\n
station, case property was deposited with the MHC (Mahavir, Head<\/p>\n
Constable).\n<\/p>\n
             After the completion of the investigation, challan was<\/p>\n
presented.\n<\/p>\n
             Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused and<\/p>\n
the same were found to be correct after scrutiny.             Case was<\/p>\n
committed to the Court of Session for trial.\n<\/p>\n
             After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State,<\/p>\n
defence counsel for the accused and perusing documents on the file.<\/p>\n
Learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out to<\/p>\n
frame charge under Sections 302\/323\/325\/34 IPC.           Charge was<\/p>\n
accordingly framed to which the accused did not plead guilty and<\/p>\n
claimed trial<\/p>\n
             In order to substantiate      the charges,   prosecution<\/p>\n
examined as many as twelve witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
             Dr. Ram Kumar was examined as PW-1. Dr. Ram Kumar
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
had medico-legally examined Sube Singh on 22.9.92 and found the<\/p>\n
following injuries on his person:\n<\/p>\n
                       1. A lacerated wound 8 x 1 x bone deep on<\/p>\n
                          the vertex of the head having fresh<\/p>\n
                          bleeding. Margins were irregular and x-ray<\/p>\n
                          was advised.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                       2. A contusion 15 x 6 cm. On the right side of<\/p>\n
                          the chest just above the costal margin and<\/p>\n
                          it was reddish in colour.     Patient was<\/p>\n
                          complainant swear pain in it and x-ray was<\/p>\n
                          advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       3. A swelling 7.5 x 4 cm on dorsal aspect of<\/p>\n
                          right hand at the base of middle and ring<\/p>\n
                          finger.    Swelling was hot and tender and<\/p>\n
                          patient was unable to move the finger. X-<\/p>\n
                          ray was advised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       4. A contusion 9 x 2.5 cm on the back of the<\/p>\n
                          right thigh just above the knee joint which<\/p>\n
                          was reddish in colour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       5. A contusion 12 x 2.5 cm on the back of the<\/p>\n
                          right thigh 6 cm. above the injury no.4. It<\/p>\n
                          was reddish in colour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       6. A contusion 10 x 3 cm on the back of the<\/p>\n
                          right thigh 7 cm above the injury no.5. It<\/p>\n
                          was reddish in colour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       7. A contusion 5 x 2.5 cm on the back of the
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
                         right shoulder joint. It was reddish in colour<\/p>\n
                         and    patient   was   referred   to   Medical<\/p>\n
                         College, Rohtak for treatment.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Injury no.2 on the person of Sube Singh was declared grievous.<\/p>\n
Other injuries were found to be simple in nature.<\/p>\n
           PW-2, Dr. Ajay Sharda stated that Sube Singh remained<\/p>\n
under his treatment.    Ex.PE is his bed head ticket.      Vide police<\/p>\n
request Ex.PF, he gave his opinion Ex.PF\/1.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-3, Dr. S.K Bhutani had conducted post mortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of Ranbir on 23.9.92 and found the<\/p>\n
following injuries on the person of Ranbir:\n<\/p>\n
                       1. Incised wound on front of forehead in the<\/p>\n
                         middle 3 cm x 0.5 cm              x 0.5 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Transversed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       2. Incised wound on right parietal in the middle<\/p>\n
                         vertical, along medial line, 6 cm x 2 cm x<\/p>\n
                         1.5 cm and on cut section bone underline<\/p>\n
                         was fractured and grey matter oozing out.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       3. Incised wound of right side of occipital<\/p>\n
                         back, semi circular, 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm<\/p>\n
                         and on cut section bone underline was<\/p>\n
                         fractured and grey matter was oozing out.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       4. Incised wound on left occipital, transverse 4<\/p>\n
                         cm x 1.0 x1.5 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       5. Abrasion on right abdomen, laterally lower<\/p>\n
                         limb vertical 3 cm x 1 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      6. Pointed wound on right renal area back<\/p>\n
                        above upper part of right hip bone in the<\/p>\n
                        middle, 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep and bone<\/p>\n
                        underline (10th rib was fractured and liver on<\/p>\n
                        posterior part lower end was ruptured and<\/p>\n
                        cavity was full of blood).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      7. Contusion   of   right      knee   lower   limb<\/p>\n
                        transverse 2 cm x 1.5 cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      8. Contusion on right leg in the middle,<\/p>\n
                        anteriorly vertical 3 cm x 2 cm.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      9. Multiple contusions of back of chest four in<\/p>\n
                        number 6 cm x 2 cm each.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      10.Contusion on left knee upper and laterally<\/p>\n
                        2 cm x 2 cm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and<\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was<\/p>\n
due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries.           Probable<\/p>\n
duration between injuries and death was within six hours and<\/p>\n
between death and post mortem was within 24 hours.<\/p>\n
           PW-4, Chander Parkash Bhatnagar, Draftsman had<\/p>\n
prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PM.\n<\/p>\n
           PW-5, Sube Singh and PW-6, Sunil are the injured eye<\/p>\n
witnesses. Both on oath stated that Prem had come to her parental<\/p>\n
house.   Ranbir came to Village Gwalison due to the death of a<\/p>\n
relative at Village Kharkhari and in that connection he was to visit<\/p>\n
Kharkhar on 25.9.1992. The accused party had dispute qua water
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
and passage of land six months earlier with the complainant-party<\/p>\n
and that dispute was settled in the Panchayat.      Ranbir was also<\/p>\n
present in the Panchayat. But even after the compromise, accused<\/p>\n
party used to harass them. On 22.9.1992 at 3:00 P.M, Ranbir was to<\/p>\n
visit village Rawaldi. Ranbir along with Sube Singh while going to the<\/p>\n
Bus Stand were present near the shop of Joravar. Accused fully<\/p>\n
armed came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was armed with an iron<\/p>\n
pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was holding a pharsa and<\/p>\n
Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong. Rajrup gave a lalkara to<\/p>\n
catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute regarding water and<\/p>\n
passage of land because Ranbir whenever visited the village then<\/p>\n
had raised a dispute. Accused armed with different weapons had<\/p>\n
caused injuries to Ranbir. Sube Singh further stated that when he<\/p>\n
intervened to save Ranbir, then Rajinder, Kanwar Lal and Rajpal<\/p>\n
gave injuries to him with their weapons. Raula was raised. Prem<\/p>\n
daughter, Sunil grand daughter, Jaipal and Vijay grandsons of Sube<\/p>\n
Singh came to the spot.      Sunil was also injured with a pipe by<\/p>\n
Kanwar Lal.      Injured were shifted to hospital where Ranbir was<\/p>\n
declared dead.      On the statement of Sube Singh, main case was<\/p>\n
registered.\n<\/p>\n
              PW-7, ASI, Brij Lal on receipt of message from SHO,<\/p>\n
Police Station, Beri had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar where dead<\/p>\n
body of Ranbir was lying. Sube Singh was also lying admitted in the<\/p>\n
hospital. Statement of Sube Singh was got recorded. Brij Lal had<\/p>\n
also prepared inquest report. Dead body was also handed over to<\/p>\n
the police officials for post mortem examination.
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
             PW-8, ASI, Sumer Singh stated that on 23.9.1992, he<\/p>\n
was with the party of SI, Shish Ram and in his presence, blood<\/p>\n
stained earth was lifted from the spot.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-9, Constble Raj Karan had tendered his affidavit<\/p>\n
Ex.PV.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-10, U.G.C Sardara Singh had handed over special<\/p>\n
report to the Illaqa Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-11 Dr.Anamika deposed that on 23.9.92, Sube Singh<\/p>\n
was medico legally examined.\n<\/p>\n
             After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the<\/p>\n
accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied<\/p>\n
all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.<\/p>\n
             Defence version of Rajrup alias Babli was that in the<\/p>\n
month of September 1992, he had come on leave from Bangalore.<\/p>\n
He was serving in the Air force. He was not present at the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence. He was taken by the police on 22.9.1992 but his formal<\/p>\n
arrest was shown on 27.9.1992. Recovery of pharsa was planted on<\/p>\n
him. His signatures were obtained in the police station. His wife had<\/p>\n
approached the high officials regarding his illegal detention w.e.f<\/p>\n
22.9.1992.\n<\/p>\n
             Defence version of Kanwar Lal and Raj Pal was that on<\/p>\n
the date of alleged occurrence, dispute arose between Sube Singh<\/p>\n
and his son Ranbir Singh.          Earlier to that also, Sube Singh and<\/p>\n
Ranbir Singh had strained relations. Grand sons and other members<\/p>\n
of the family of Sube Singh gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside<\/p>\n
the baithak. On receipt of injuries, Ranbir Singh had died. After the
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
death of Ranbir Singh, Sube Singh with the connivance of the police,<\/p>\n
had falsely implicated the accused.\n<\/p>\n
            In defence, Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that<\/p>\n
Rajrup is married with his sister’s daughter Anita. Rajrup was falsely<\/p>\n
implicated in a murder case. On the date of occurrence, Rajrup and<\/p>\n
Anita were present in his house from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. After<\/p>\n
seven days, he came to know that Rajrup was falsely implicated in a<\/p>\n
murder case. He had gone to the police station to enquire as to why<\/p>\n
Rajrup was implicated in this case. He was also threatened by a<\/p>\n
police official to be implicated in the case.\n<\/p>\n
            DW-2, Bijender Singh stated that on 7.10.1992, complaint<\/p>\n
was received from Anita Devi.        Entry was made in the register.<\/p>\n
Complaint was regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.<\/p>\n
            DW-3, Anita Devi has supported the version of DW-1,<\/p>\n
Mahabir by saying that on the day of occurrence, she alongwith her<\/p>\n
husband, Rajrup was in the house of Mahabir from 10:00 A.M to 5:00<\/p>\n
P.M. Rajrup was arrested at 6:00 P.M while present in front of Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Jhajjar.   On 26.9.1992, a complaint was sent to Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.<\/p>\n
            DW-4, Amarjeet Singh, Assistant Complaint Clerk, SP<\/p>\n
Office stated that no complaint was received from Anita from<\/p>\n
26.9.1992 to 28.9.1992 but on 5.10.92, a complaint was received on<\/p>\n
behalf of Ranbir regarding implication of Rajrup in FIR No.171.<\/p>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the State, defence<\/p>\n
counsel for the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar<\/p>\n
had convicted the accused under Sections 302\/325\/323\/34 IPC and
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above.<\/p>\n
           Defence counsel for the appellant-accused argued that<\/p>\n
occurrence had taken place on 3:00 P.M on 22.9.1992. Ruqa was<\/p>\n
sent at 5:45 P.M but statement of the injured was recorded at 9:30<\/p>\n
P.M. FIR was recorded at 10:30 P.M. There was a delay in lodging<\/p>\n
the FIR. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station<\/p>\n
was hardly 15 kilometers.     Story was concocted to implicate the<\/p>\n
appellants. Delay is fatal. There was no motive to commit the crime.<\/p>\n
For the last 20 years, Ranbir was staying at his in-laws house. Sube<\/p>\n
Singh had given property to his son. No question of dispute of water<\/p>\n
and passage of land with Ranbir Singh. In fact Ranbir Singh had<\/p>\n
dispute with Sube Singh.     Ranbir Singh was demanding property.<\/p>\n
Sube Singh and his family members had caused injuries to Ranbir<\/p>\n
Singh. Later on with the connivance of police, appellants-accused<\/p>\n
were falsely implicated. In case a dispute was earlier settled before<\/p>\n
the Panchayat then one or two Panchayat Members could easily be<\/p>\n
produced to show that earlier there was a dispute amongst the<\/p>\n
parties. Medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence. Rajpal<\/p>\n
was armed with a jaili and as per story he gave jaili blow on the left<\/p>\n
thigh of Ranbir.   If Rajpal had the intention to cause injuries then<\/p>\n
there was no idea to give jaili blow thrustwhile. Presence of Rajpal is<\/p>\n
doubtful. Rajrup was also not present at the time of occurrence. He<\/p>\n
was present at the house of Mahabir. In fact Sube Singh and his<\/p>\n
family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. After the death<\/p>\n
of Ranbir Singh, whole story was concocted. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants requested to acquit the appellants-accused.
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
           Ms. Navin Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana<\/p>\n
argued that deceased along with Sube Singh was present near the<\/p>\n
shop of Joravar. Accused fully armed came from the backside and<\/p>\n
had caused injuries to the deceased and Sube Singh. Appellants-<\/p>\n
accused had the intention to commit the crime.       Occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place on 22.9.1992. If Rajrup was at the house of Mahabir<\/p>\n
then why complaint was not sent on the same day. Ex.DB is the<\/p>\n
copy of the complaint dated 26.9.1992. DW-1, Mahabir and the wife<\/p>\n
of Rajrup were very much interested in the acquittal of appellant-<\/p>\n
accused. Rajrup when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then he<\/p>\n
did not state a word that he had gone to the house of Mahabir.<\/p>\n
Occurrence had taken place near the shop of Joravar but no<\/p>\n
independent witness came forward to say that Sube Singh and his<\/p>\n
family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. If the defence<\/p>\n
version is correct one than the question is how the injuries figured on<\/p>\n
the person of Sube Singh and Sunil.         Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent-State further argued that evidence on the file was rightly<\/p>\n
appreciated. She requested to dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n
           First submission of the learned defence counsel is that<\/p>\n
there is delay in lodging the FIR and delay is fatal. But we are not in<\/p>\n
a position to agree with the submission of the learned defence<\/p>\n
counsel because occurrence had taken place at about 3:00 P.M near<\/p>\n
the shop of Joravar. After the occurrence injured was shifted to Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Jhajjar, where Ranbir Singh was declared dead. From Civil<\/p>\n
Hospital, Jhajjar, V.T message was sent to police Station, Jhajjar and<\/p>\n
from police station Jhajjar, message was sent to Police Station Beri.
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
On receipt of message, ASI, Brij Lal, incharge PP Chuchakwas<\/p>\n
reached Police Station, Jhajjar. Thereafter he went to Civil Hospital,<\/p>\n
Jhajjar.   Dead body of Ranbir Singh was lying in the emergency<\/p>\n
ward. Sube Singh was lying admitted in the emergency ward. After<\/p>\n
obtaining opinion from doctor as to whether injured is fit to make a<\/p>\n
statement or not, statement of Sube Singh was recorded.          After<\/p>\n
making endorsement at 9:30 P.M on 22.2.1992, statement was sent<\/p>\n
to police station, Beri. On the statement of Sube Singh, formal FIR<\/p>\n
was recorded. Sunil was also injured. Ten injuries were noted on<\/p>\n
the person of Ranbir Singh. Seven injuries were noted on the person<\/p>\n
of Sube Singh. When there are number of injuries with sharp edged<\/p>\n
weapons then an effort is made to shift the injured to the nearest<\/p>\n
hospital for medical aid.     Eye witnesses\/close relations are not<\/p>\n
expected to approach the police station by leaving the injured on the<\/p>\n
spot. Appellants-accused were related to the deceased. By leaving<\/p>\n
the real culprit particularly, when the occurrence was during the day<\/p>\n
time, complainant-party was not expected to implicate the appellants-<\/p>\n
accused. Delay was fully explained. In case we presume that there<\/p>\n
is delay in lodging the FIR then delay itself is not sufficient for<\/p>\n
acquittal of the accused.         Delay is one of the suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstances to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution.<\/p>\n
Delay is not sufficient for acquittal of the accused.<\/p>\n
            Second submission of the learned defence counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants-accused is that there was no motive\/enmity to commit<\/p>\n
the crime. In fact, Ranbir Singh was residing at his in-laws house.<\/p>\n
Father-in-law of Ranbir had transferred his property in the name of
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
the sons of Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh was pressurizing his father<\/p>\n
to give his share.    Complainant-party had a dispute with Ranbir<\/p>\n
Singh. Ranbir Singh was given injuries near the baithak. Appellants-<\/p>\n
accused were falsely implicated.\n<\/p>\n
           We have considered the submission of the learned<\/p>\n
defence counsel but we are not in a position to accept the same.<\/p>\n
Evidence on the file shows that earlier to the present occurrence,<\/p>\n
there was a dispute qua water and passage amongst the parties and<\/p>\n
that dispute was settled in the Panchayat. In case there was no<\/p>\n
dispute six months earlier, then any Member of the Panchayat could<\/p>\n
be produced in defence to state that there was no dispute amongst<\/p>\n
the complainant party and the accused.          As discussed earlier,<\/p>\n
appellants are related to the complainant-party and if there was no<\/p>\n
dispute then there was no idea to implicate the appellants-accused.<\/p>\n
Sometimes without motive, heinous crimes are committed. In case<\/p>\n
prosecution fails to prove motive then only on this short ground, story<\/p>\n
is not to be ignored. In the present case, six months earlier to the<\/p>\n
present occurrence, there was a dispute amongst the complainant-<\/p>\n
party and the accused qua path and water course but that dispute<\/p>\n
was settled. Appellants-accused were of the opinion that whenever<\/p>\n
Ranbir Singh came to the house of his father then his family<\/p>\n
members were instigated to have dispute with the appellants-<\/p>\n
accused. To settle the dispute, accused-party came fully armed and<\/p>\n
had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh. All injuries on<\/p>\n
the person of Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh cannot be self-suffered<\/p>\n
or self-inflicted, particularly, when some of the injuries were on the
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
vital parts of the body.\n<\/p>\n
            Defence counsel further submitted that presence of<\/p>\n
Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful. Rajpal was armed with<\/p>\n
small pronged jaili. One injury was caused on the left foot of Ranbir<\/p>\n
Singh. Some injuries were given to Sube Singh with a jaili by using<\/p>\n
the same dangwise.         In case Rajpal had the intention to cause<\/p>\n
injuries then injuries could easily be caused with his jaili thrustwise.<\/p>\n
There was no idea to cause injury with a jaili like dangwise.<\/p>\n
Submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be reasonable<\/p>\n
one. Rajpal was armed with small pronged jaili and as per story only<\/p>\n
one injury was given to Ranbir Singh by using jaili dangwise and the<\/p>\n
injury was on the left foot. Four injuries with a jaili were given to<\/p>\n
Sube Singh.     Jaili was used like dangwise.    Dr. S.K Bhutani had<\/p>\n
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranbir<\/p>\n
Singh. But no injury on the left foot. Dr. Ram Kumar had medico<\/p>\n
legally examined Sube Singh. There were four injuries alleged to be<\/p>\n
caused by Rajpal i.e one on the thigh second on the right side of<\/p>\n
stomach, third on the right hip and last on the right side of the<\/p>\n
shoulder.     On cross-examination, doctor admitted that injuries<\/p>\n
alleged to have been caused by Rajpal with a jaili used dangwise are<\/p>\n
possible by fall. Sube Singh while appearing in the Court as PW-5,<\/p>\n
in chief, stated that Rajpal waived the jaili and gave lathiwise blow on<\/p>\n
the right thigh of Ranbir Singh and then again on the left thigh. But<\/p>\n
as per doctor, no injury on the left thigh of Ranbir Singh was noticed.<\/p>\n
On cross-examination, Sube Singh admitted that on receipt of<\/p>\n
injuries, he had a fall on the left side touching the ground. But, not
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
even a single word has been mentioned in the FIR that on receipt of<\/p>\n
injuries, Sube Singh had a fall on the ground. Injuries alleged to<\/p>\n
have been caused by Rajpal as per doctor were possible by fall.<\/p>\n
Rajpal was armed with a jaili but only one blow was given to Ranbir.<\/p>\n
If Rajpal had the intention or he was present at the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence then number of injuries were expected to have been<\/p>\n
caused with a jaili by using the same thrustwise not dangwise. Due<\/p>\n
to previous enmity, Rajpal was expected to repeat the blow but blow<\/p>\n
was not repeated. Before the present occurrence, complainant-party<\/p>\n
had a dispute with the accused-party. No jaili blow alleged to have<\/p>\n
been given to Ranbir Singh by Rajpal was noticed by the doctor at<\/p>\n
the time of post mortem examination. Injuries alleged to have been<\/p>\n
caused by Rajpal on the person of Sube Singh were possible by a<\/p>\n
fall. Rajpal was implicated being the brother of Rajrup and son of<\/p>\n
Kanwar Lal, who died during the pendency of the appeal.        Sunil,<\/p>\n
second injured was examined on 23.9.1999. But injury on the person<\/p>\n
of Sunil was possible by fall. Sunil when appeared in Court then<\/p>\n
stated that Rajpal gave two jaili blows on the right leg of Ranbir.<\/p>\n
Rajpal gave three jaili blows to Sube Singh. One on the right foot,<\/p>\n
second on the shoulder and third on the right side. Statement of<\/p>\n
Sunil is contrary to the sttement of Sube Singh and medical evidence<\/p>\n
as suggestion was given to Sunil that she had not witnessed the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Presence of Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful.<\/p>\n
           Defence counsel further argued that presence of Rajrup<\/p>\n
is also doubtful at the time of occurrence. Rajender Singh had died<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the trial. Kanwarl Lal had died during the
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
pendency of the appeal. On the day of occurrence, Rajrup was away<\/p>\n
to the house of Mahabir. Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that<\/p>\n
at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was present in his house. But after<\/p>\n
going through the evidence on file, we are not in a position to agree<\/p>\n
with the submission of the learned defence counsel. No suggestion<\/p>\n
to the witnesses that at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was not<\/p>\n
present and in fact he was present in the house of Mahabir. Rajrup<\/p>\n
when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, then stated that on the<\/p>\n
day of occurrence, he was on leave. He was arrested by the police<\/p>\n
on 22.9.1992 but his formal arrest was shown on 27.9.92. His wife<\/p>\n
had moved the higher authorities for his illegal detention from<\/p>\n
22.9.92. In case Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir at the<\/p>\n
time of occurrence, then Rajrup when examined under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C should have stated that he was present in the house of<\/p>\n
Mahabir situated in the revenue estate of village Chhara. Mahabir, in<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief stated that Rajrup is married with Anita,<\/p>\n
daughter of his sister. After seven days he came to know that Rajrup<\/p>\n
was involved in a murder case. He had gone to police station to<\/p>\n
enquire as to why Rajrup was implicated in a murder case. That<\/p>\n
means after seven days, Mahabir came to know that Rajrup was<\/p>\n
taken away by the police. In case Rajrup was arrested on 22.9.92<\/p>\n
then Mahabir being the relative of Rajrup should have approached<\/p>\n
the police immediately. Statement of Mahabir was not recorded by<\/p>\n
the police.   Mahabir did not file any complaint against the police<\/p>\n
officials. In cross-examination, Mahabir admitted that after two days<\/p>\n
he came to know from Anita that complaint was sent to the higher
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
authorities qua false involvement of Rajrup. Anita appeared as DW-3<\/p>\n
and stated that from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M on 22.9.92, she along<\/p>\n
with Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir. But Rajrup was<\/p>\n
arrested on the same day while present in front of Civil Hospital,<\/p>\n
Jhajjar.   On 26.9.1992, she had sent complaints to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner.     Her grandfather had sent complaints to Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner on 28.9.92. In case Rajrup was arrested on the same<\/p>\n
day and was detained illegally, then why complaints were not sent on<\/p>\n
the same day. On 24.9.1992 or 25.9.1992, Mahabir came to know<\/p>\n
from Anita that complaints were sent to the higher authorities but<\/p>\n
Anita stated that complaints were sent to the higher authorities on<\/p>\n
28.9.1992. Anita, in cross-examination, admitted that she along with<\/p>\n
her grand father had gone to police station on 24.9.92 to enquire as<\/p>\n
to why Rajrup was arrested.     Rajrup was armed with pharsa and<\/p>\n
gave three blows to Ranbir Singh. Blows were on the vital parts of<\/p>\n
the body. Blows on the vital parts cannot be self-suffered or self-<\/p>\n
inflicted. As per defence version of Kanwar Lal, Ranbir Singh had<\/p>\n
dispute with Sube Singh and other family members. Sube Singh and<\/p>\n
his family members gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside the<\/p>\n
baithak.   But Sube Singh and Ranbir Singh had no dispute with<\/p>\n
anybody else. Prior to the present occurrence, Ranbir Singh had not<\/p>\n
filed any civil suit or complaint against Sube Singh and others to get<\/p>\n
his share from Sube Singh. When Ranbir Singh or his sons were<\/p>\n
not demanding property from Sube Singh and there was no dispute<\/p>\n
then Sube Singh and his family members were not supposed to give<\/p>\n
beatings to Ranbir Singh. All this shows that Rajrup fully armed was
\n Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
present at the time of occurrence and had caused injuries to Ranbir<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
           No other submission was put forward.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the all discussed above, appeal filed by Rajpal<\/p>\n
is accepted, whereas of Rajrup is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           Registry to send intimation to the concerned authorities<\/p>\n
for the release of appellant, Rajpal forthwith, in case he is not wanted<\/p>\n
in any other Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      ( JASBIR SINGH )             ( JORA SINGH )\n                          JUDGE                       JUDGE\n\nJanuary 07, 2009\nritu\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009 Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 Date of decision : January 07, 2009 ***** Rajrup and others …………Appellants Versus State of Haryana ………..Respondents ***** 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-91241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 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\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-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=\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-16T11:49:36+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-16T11:49:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5236,\"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\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-16T11:49:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 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":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 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\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-16T11:49:36+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-16T11:49:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009"},"wordCount":5236,"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\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009","name":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-16T11:49:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajrup-and-others-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajrup And Others vs State Of Haryana on 12 May, 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\/91241","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=91241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}