{"id":91947,"date":"2008-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2"},"modified":"2018-10-29T19:04:58","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T13:34:58","slug":"resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008<\/div>\n
              Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007\n                           -1-\n\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,\n             CHANDIGARH\n\n                              Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007\n                              Date of decision.04.10.2008\n\n\nResham Kaur wife of Chamkaur Singh son of Narain Singh,\nresident of village Rattian, Tehsil and District Moga.\n\n\n                                          ....... Appellant\n                       Versus\n\n\nThe State of Punjab\n\n                                          ........ Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:   Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate\n           for the appellant.\n\n           Mr.S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab\n           for the respondent.\n\n                       ****\n\nSham Sunder, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           This appeal is directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction dated 01.02.2007 and the order of sentence dated<\/p>\n
05.02.2007, rendered by the Special Judge, Moga, vide which<\/p>\n
he convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and<\/p>\n
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
as the ‘Act’ only) and sentenced her to undergo RI for a period<\/p>\n
of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period<\/p>\n
of one year, for having been found in possession of four bags<\/p>\n
each containing 25 Kgs and 250 grams poppy straw, without<\/p>\n
any permit or licence.\n<\/p>\n
2.                 The facts, in brief, are that on 30.09.2005<\/p>\n
ASI Sham Lal along with other police officials, was on patrol<\/p>\n
duty on the link road, leading from Mehna to village<\/p>\n
Chugawan, in a Government vehicle. When the police party<\/p>\n
reached near the drain, in the area of village Chugawan, one<\/p>\n
lady, was found sitting on four bags, lying in a dried drain. On<\/p>\n
seeing the police party, she tried to slip away, but on suspicion,<\/p>\n
she was apprehended. She disclosed her identity. Search of the<\/p>\n
bags, in accordance with the provisions of law, in the presence<\/p>\n
of DSP Bhulla Singh, who was called to the spot, by sending a<\/p>\n
message, was conducted. Each bag was found containing 25<\/p>\n
Kgs and 250 grams poppy husk. One sample of 250 grams of<\/p>\n
poppy husk, was taken out, from each bag. The contents of<\/p>\n
the samples were put into separate containers,           and the<\/p>\n
remaining poppy husk, was kept in the same bags. The bags,<\/p>\n
and the samples, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and<\/p>\n
taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo.       Ruqa
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR<\/p>\n
was recorded.    The site plan was prepared. The accused was<\/p>\n
arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After<\/p>\n
the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.<\/p>\n
3.                  On her appearance, in the Court,          the<\/p>\n
accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by<\/p>\n
the prosecution. Charge under Section 15(c) of the Act, was<\/p>\n
framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty<\/p>\n
and claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.                   The prosecution, in support of its case,<\/p>\n
examined     Sham    Lal,     ASI,   (PW-1),   Ashok   Kumar,<\/p>\n
Photographer, (PW-2), Ramesh Kumar, C., (PW-3), Balbir<\/p>\n
Singh, HC, ( PW-4 ), Bhulla Singh, DSP, ( PW-5 ), Avtar<\/p>\n
Singh, ASI, ( PW-6 ), Kesar Singh, SI, ( PW-7 ), Amar Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI, ( PW-8 ) and Kulwant Singh, HC, ( PW-9 ). Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.                  The statement of the accused, under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded.<\/p>\n
She was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against her, in the prosecution evidence. She pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication. She, however, stated that she was not the owner<\/p>\n
of the bags, containing poppy husk. She further stated that she
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
did not possess the same. She further stated that she was<\/p>\n
neither the owner , nor in possession of the place of recovery.<\/p>\n
She further stated that a false case was planted against her, by<\/p>\n
the police. She further stated that on 30.09.2005, she was<\/p>\n
illegally taken by the police, in the presence of Raju and<\/p>\n
Maghar Singh.       The police searched     her house, but no<\/p>\n
incriminating article was recovered. She further stated that, in<\/p>\n
fact, her son Lal Singh,who was residing separately from<\/p>\n
her, was absconder in a criminal case and in order to<\/p>\n
pressurize her to produce him, she was falsely implicated in<\/p>\n
the instant case. She further stated that her husband also<\/p>\n
moved an application, regarding her false implication. She<\/p>\n
further stated that Tata Sumo, which was in the name of her<\/p>\n
son Lal Singh, was also illegally taken into possession, by the<\/p>\n
police, but the same was not returned to her. She further<\/p>\n
stated that a telegram was also sent to the Senior authorities in<\/p>\n
this regard. Later on, Harjit Singh and the driver were left by<\/p>\n
the police.\n<\/p>\n
5-A                 In her defence, the accused       examined<\/p>\n
Jagsir Singh, C., DW1, Raju son of Gulzar Singh, DW-2, and<\/p>\n
Chamkaur Singh, DW-3. Thereafter, the accused closed the<\/p>\n
defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
6.                 After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the<\/p>\n
State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the<\/p>\n
evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced<\/p>\n
the accused, as stated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
7.                 Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.<\/p>\n
8.                 I have heard the Counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
and have gone through the evidence and record of the case,<\/p>\n
carefully.\n<\/p>\n
9.                 The Counsel for the appellant, at the very<\/p>\n
outset, vehemently contended that          though the alleged<\/p>\n
recovery was effected, in this case, on 30.09.2005, yet the<\/p>\n
samples were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner on<\/p>\n
11.10.2005 i.e. after the     delay of 11 days.      He further<\/p>\n
submitted that there was no explanation, with regard to delay,<\/p>\n
in sending the samples, to the office of the Laboratory. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that, under these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
possibility of tampering with the samples, until the same<\/p>\n
reached the office of the Laboratory, could not be ruled out.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this<\/p>\n
regard, does not appear to be correct. Mere delay, in itself, is<\/p>\n
not sufficient to come to the conclusion, that the sample
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
parcels were tampered with, until the same reached the office<\/p>\n
of the Chemical Examiner. In the absence of any explanation,<\/p>\n
the Court is required to take into consideration the other<\/p>\n
evidence, produced by the prosecution, to come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion whether the link evidence is complete on not. In<\/p>\n
the instant case, the other evidence produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution has been subjected to in-depth scrutiny, and the<\/p>\n
same has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and<\/p>\n
trustworthy. From the other evidence, it was proved that none<\/p>\n
tampered with the samples, until the same reached the office<\/p>\n
of the Laboratory.     Even there is report of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner Ex.P25, which clearly proves that the seals on the<\/p>\n
exhibits were intact, on arrival, till the time of their analysis<\/p>\n
and agreed with the specimen impression of the seals. The<\/p>\n
report Ex.25 of the Chemical Examiner, is per-se admissible,<\/p>\n
in toto, under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
There is no challenge, to the report of the Laboratory, in this<\/p>\n
case. In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1) RCR<\/p>\n
(Criminal) 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in sending<\/p>\n
the samples to the Laboratory, is not fatal, where there is<\/p>\n
evidence that the seized articles remained in safe custody.<\/p>\n
Since, it was proved that none tampered with the samples,<\/p>\n
until the same were received, in the office of the Chemical
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Examiner, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
merely based on      conjectures, does not hold good. The<\/p>\n
principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since it was proved<\/p>\n
that none tampered with the samples, until the same reached<\/p>\n
the office of the Chemical Examiner, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit,<\/p>\n
must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
10.                         The Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
however, placed reliance on Jagmohan Singh alias Jago v.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab 2007(3) RCR ( Criminal ) 900, decided by a<\/p>\n
Single Bench of this Court, to contend that non-furnishing of<\/p>\n
an explanation for sending the samples to the office of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner, after        delay, clearly proved that the<\/p>\n
possibility of the tampering with the same, could not be ruled<\/p>\n
out. The perusal of the facts of Jagmohan Singh alias Jago’s<\/p>\n
case ( supra)     reveals     that the appellant was acquitted<\/p>\n
therein, on so many grounds. One of the major grounds, for<\/p>\n
the acquittal of the appellant, was to the effect, that the<\/p>\n
accused was not found in conscious possession of the poppy<\/p>\n
husk. No other evidence produced, in that case, that none<\/p>\n
tampered with the sample, until the same reached the office of
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Chemical Examiner, as there was delay of 12 days, in<\/p>\n
sending the same, to the Laboratory. In the instant case, the<\/p>\n
evidence was produced, by the prosecution, as stated above,<\/p>\n
to prove that none tampered with the samples, until the same<\/p>\n
reached the Laboratory. That evidence as stated above, has<\/p>\n
been found cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. As<\/p>\n
would be discussed, in the succeeding paragraphs, the<\/p>\n
accused was also found in conscious possession of poppy<\/p>\n
husk.     The facts of Jagmohan Singh alias Jago’s case<\/p>\n
( supra ) are distinguishable, from the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case.    No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, from the authority, cited by him, and referred to<\/p>\n
above.   In this view of the matter, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and<\/p>\n
the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11.                It was next submitted by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant, that the appellant was not found in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of the bags, containing poppy husk. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that the mere fact that the appellant was allegedly<\/p>\n
found sitting on the bags, at a place, which was neither her<\/p>\n
ownership nor in her possession, did not prove that she was<\/p>\n
in possession of the said bags, containing poppy husk. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
prove the conscious possession of the appellant, in respect of<\/p>\n
the contraband and, as such, no offence, whatsoever, was<\/p>\n
committed by her, under Section 15 of the Act.               The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,<\/p>\n
does not appear to be correct. The accused was found sitting<\/p>\n
on four bags, containing poppy husk. Since she was found<\/p>\n
sitting on four bags containing poppy husk, it was within her<\/p>\n
special means of knowledge, as to how the bags containing<\/p>\n
poppy husk came there. It was also within her special means<\/p>\n
of knowledge, as to how, she was sitting on those bags. It<\/p>\n
was also within her special means of knowledge as to where<\/p>\n
those bags were to be transported. The accused, however,<\/p>\n
failed to furnish any explanation in regard to the aforesaid<\/p>\n
questions. It is not the case of the accused that she was just<\/p>\n
passing by that side, and with a view to take rest, she sat on<\/p>\n
those bags. It was also not the case of the accused that<\/p>\n
somebody else kept the bags, containing poppy husk there in<\/p>\n
her presence, told her, to keep a watch over the same and she<\/p>\n
was, thus, not in conscious possession thereof. It was also<\/p>\n
not the case of the accused, during the course of trial, that the<\/p>\n
bags containing poppy husk were the ownership of somebody<\/p>\n
else, but she was only asked, to keep the same, in her<\/p>\n
possession temporarily. Since the accused, was found sitting
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
on four bags, containing poppy husk, her possession in<\/p>\n
relation thereto and control over the same was proved.   Once<\/p>\n
the possession of and control over the bags, containing poppy<\/p>\n
husk, in relation to the      accused, was established, then<\/p>\n
statutory presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act,<\/p>\n
operated against her, that she was in conscious possession<\/p>\n
thereof. Thereafter, the onus shifted, on to her, to prove that<\/p>\n
she was not in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it<\/p>\n
was for her, to rebut the presumption, by leading cogent and<\/p>\n
convincing evidence. However, the appellant failed to rebut<\/p>\n
that presumption, either during the course of cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by leading<\/p>\n
defence evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Court was<\/p>\n
right, in holding that the accused         was in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband. Section 54 of the Act ibid reads<\/p>\n
as under :-\n<\/p>\n
      “Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In<\/p>\n
      trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and<\/p>\n
      until the contrary is proved, that the accused has<\/p>\n
      committed an offence under this Act, in respect of:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      a)      any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or<\/p>\n
      controlled substance;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                              -11-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        b)     any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant<\/p>\n
        growing on any land which he has cultivated;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        c)     any apparatus specially designed or any group<\/p>\n
        of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of<\/p>\n
        any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or<\/p>\n
        controller substance; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        d)     any materials which have undergone any<\/p>\n
        process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug<\/p>\n
        or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or<\/p>\n
        any residue left of the materials from which any<\/p>\n
        narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled<\/p>\n
        substance has been manufactured,<\/p>\n
        for the possession of which he fails to account<\/p>\n
        satisfactorily.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11-A.          Section 35 which relates to the presumption of<\/p>\n
culpable mental state, is extracted as under :-<\/p>\n
“Presumption of culpable mental state:-           (1)   In any<\/p>\n
prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a<\/p>\n
culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume<\/p>\n
the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for<\/p>\n
the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state<\/p>\n
with respect to the act charged as an offence in that<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                             -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
Explanation:- In this section “culpable mental state” includes<\/p>\n
intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason<\/p>\n
to believe, a fact.\n<\/p>\n
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved<\/p>\n
only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a<\/p>\n
preponderance of probability.”\n<\/p>\n
11-B.                 From the conjoint reading of the provisions<\/p>\n
of Sections 54 and 35, referred to hereinbefore, it becomes<\/p>\n
abundantly clear, that once an accused, is found to be in<\/p>\n
possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed<\/p>\n
the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the<\/p>\n
contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid,<\/p>\n
the Court shall presume the existence of mental state, for the<\/p>\n
commission of an offence, and it is for the accused to prove<\/p>\n
otherwise. In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P.<\/p>\n
2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
The word “conscious” means awareness about a particular
\nfact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.\n<\/p>\n
        Once possession is established, the person who claims
\nthat it was not a conscious possession has to establish it,
\nbecause how he came to be in possession is within his special
\nknowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition
\nof this position because of the presumption available in law.\n<\/p>\n
                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also
\npresumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit
\narticles.”\n<\/p>\n
11-C                In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2003)<\/p>\n
4 RCR(Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found<\/p>\n
sitting on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk.             The<\/p>\n
appellant was arrested, while the other two fled.        25 bags<\/p>\n
containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot, which were<\/p>\n
seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, and the appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by the<\/p>\n
High Court. The Apex        Court, upheld the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence of the appellant, observing that he was in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband. The word ‘conscious’ means<\/p>\n
awareness about a particular fact. It is the state of mind, which<\/p>\n
is deliberate or intended. It was further held that possession in<\/p>\n
a given case, need not be physical possession, but can be<\/p>\n
constructive, having power and control over the article, while<\/p>\n
the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject<\/p>\n
to that power or control. In the instant case, it therefore, could<\/p>\n
not be said that the accused was not aware of the contraband.<\/p>\n
It was not a small quantity of contraband, which was<\/p>\n
concealed, and, as such, could escape the notice of the accused.<\/p>\n
Keeping in view the principle of law, laid down, in the
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
aforesaid cases, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the<\/p>\n
Act, and the evidence produced, on record, the trial Court, in<\/p>\n
my opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the<\/p>\n
accused was found in conscious possession of poppy husk. In<\/p>\n
this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the<\/p>\n
same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
12.                The Counsel for the appellant,however,<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab 2005(1)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 823, and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha v.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab 2006(1) RCR ( Criminal ) 4 , in support of<\/p>\n
his contention, that the accused was not found in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband. These cases were decided by this<\/p>\n
Court. The perusal of the facts of the aforesaid authorities,<\/p>\n
clearly goes to show that the same are distinguishable, from the<\/p>\n
facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid cases, relied upon by<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, the accused were acquitted on a<\/p>\n
number of grounds.      Even the accused were not found in<\/p>\n
conscious possession of the contraband. In the instant case, the<\/p>\n
conscious possession of the contraband of the accused and her<\/p>\n
control over the same, stood proved. Even otherwise, in view<\/p>\n
of the principle of law laid down, in Megh Singh’s case<\/p>\n
( supra ), decided by the Apex Court, any principle of law, to
\n                  Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                              -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
the contrary, laid down, on the same point, in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authorities, relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, shall<\/p>\n
not hold the field. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, from these authorities. In this view<\/p>\n
of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
13.                 It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that no question in statement under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., was put to the accused, that she was in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband and as such, she could not be held<\/p>\n
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,<\/p>\n
also does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here that in<\/p>\n
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., only the incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstances,    appearing   against   the   accused,   in     the<\/p>\n
prosecution evidence are required to be put to him\/her. The<\/p>\n
provisions of law, or the presumption operating under the<\/p>\n
provisions of law, are not required to be put to her\/him in the<\/p>\n
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. In the instant case, in the<\/p>\n
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused was put a<\/p>\n
specific question, that she was found sitting on four bags,<\/p>\n
containing poppy husk. She was, thus, made aware of the<\/p>\n
factum that she was found in possession of and in control over
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
the bags, containing poppy husk. As stated above, once the<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband was proved, in relation to the<\/p>\n
accused, statutory presumption of law under Sections 54 and<\/p>\n
35 of the Act, started operating against him\/her that he\/she was<\/p>\n
in conscious possession thereof. In these circumstances, it<\/p>\n
could not be said that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
of the accused was not properly recorded. The submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being devoid of merit, is<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.                  The Counsel for the appellant, however,<\/p>\n
placed reliance on     Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab 2005(2)<\/p>\n
RCR ( Criminal ) 520, decided by a Single Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court, in support of his contention that once the question<\/p>\n
regarding conscious possession of the contraband was not put<\/p>\n
to the accused, in her statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for the offence under the Act. In Bhola<\/p>\n
Singh’s case ( supra ) no question was put to the accused, that<\/p>\n
he was in possession of those bags. In these circumstances, it<\/p>\n
was held that the conscious possession of the contraband, was<\/p>\n
not proved, in relation to him. The facts of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authority, are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case.<\/p>\n
No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, from the authority, cited by him, and referred to
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
above.   In this view of the matter, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and<\/p>\n
the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15.               It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, that the affidavit of Balbir Singh, Head Constable,<\/p>\n
being contrary to the provisions of Section 297(2) Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
and, therefore, no reliance, thereon, could be placed.       He<\/p>\n
further submitted that once the affidavit of Balbir Singh,HC, is<\/p>\n
taken off the record, then the link evidence           becomes<\/p>\n
incomplete. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Balbir Singh, HC,<\/p>\n
who tendered his affidavit Ex.P-18, appeared in the witness<\/p>\n
box as PW-4. He was duly cross-examined by the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the accused. In case, there was any defect, in the affidavit of<\/p>\n
Balbir Singh, HC, PW-4, regarding verification the matter<\/p>\n
could be got clarified from him. However, no question, was<\/p>\n
put to this witness, in this regard. Had this witness been not<\/p>\n
examined, the matter would have been different. Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, whether there was any technical defect, in the<\/p>\n
affidavit or not, that hardly mattered. In Balwinder Singh v.<\/p>\n
State of Haryana 1998(1) RCR ( Criminal ) 191 ( DB )<\/p>\n
(P&H),    a contention was raised by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
accused, that the affidavits of the police officials, were not
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                             -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
verified, as per the provisions of law, and, as such, a prejudice<\/p>\n
was caused to the accused, on account of that reason. In that<\/p>\n
case, both the formal witnesses, were tendered for cross-<\/p>\n
examination, by the prosecution,          and they were cross-<\/p>\n
examined. In these circumstances, it was held by a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court, that since both the formal witnesses were<\/p>\n
tendered for cross-examination, whether there was any defects<\/p>\n
in the verification of the affidavit or not, hardly mattered and it<\/p>\n
did not cause any prejudice to the accused. The principle of law<\/p>\n
laid down in Balwinder Singh’s case ( supra ) is fully<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of the instant case. It, therefore, does not<\/p>\n
lie, in the mouth of the appellant, to say, that the verification of<\/p>\n
the affidavits was defective.     The submission of the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant, thus, being devoid of merit, is rejected.<\/p>\n
16.                 The Counsel for the appellant, however,<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Santokh Singh @ Sokha v. The State of<\/p>\n
Punjab 2003(1) RCR ( Criminal ) 613, a case decided by a<\/p>\n
Single Bench of this Court. In that case, the verification of the<\/p>\n
affidavit was defective. It was, thus, held by this Court that the<\/p>\n
link evidence was incomplete. The facts of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
authority are distinguishable, from the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid<\/p>\n
down, in Balwinder Singh’s case ( supra ), decided by a
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                            -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court, any contrary principle of law,<\/p>\n
laid down, on the same point in Santokh Singh @ Sokha’s<\/p>\n
case ( supra ), shall not hold the field. No help, therefore, can<\/p>\n
be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant, from the ratio of<\/p>\n
law, laid down, in the authority cited by him, and referred to<\/p>\n
above.   In this view of the matter, the submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and<\/p>\n
the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
17.                  It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that when the case property was produced before the<\/p>\n
Illaqa Magistrate, he passed order Ex.P20\/A, stating therein<\/p>\n
that the samples of poppy husk were produced before him. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that this order is dated       06.12.2005. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that by that time, the samples had already<\/p>\n
been sent to the Chemical Examiner and how the same could be<\/p>\n
produced and photographs thereof, could be taken before the<\/p>\n
Illaqa Magistrate.     He further submitted that, under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the entire case of the prosecution, was false.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, on the face of<\/p>\n
it, appears to be very attractive, but when scrutinized, in the<\/p>\n
face of the evidence, pales into insignificance. No doubt, in<\/p>\n
the order dated 06.12.2005, there is mention of production of<\/p>\n
sample parcels, for taking photographs thereof. However, it is
\n                    Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                                -20-<\/span><\/p>\n
evident from the inventory Ex.P-20, that there was no mention<\/p>\n
of the production of the sample parcels.         On account of<\/p>\n
inadvertence, it was typed that sample parcels were also<\/p>\n
produced. However, lateron, an application was moved for<\/p>\n
correction of the order.      The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,<\/p>\n
Moga, on 14.12.2005 passed the following order, Ex.P20\/B:-<\/p>\n
      “At this stage, SHO P.S. Mehna has given an<\/p>\n
      application for the correction of inventory to the<\/p>\n
      extent that 4 samples have already been drawn<\/p>\n
      from the case property. I have perused the<\/p>\n
      inventory report already made by the Court and 4<\/p>\n
      samples in small cloth parcels produced has been<\/p>\n
      made inadvertently. So, necessary correction be<\/p>\n
      made to that extent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It was only a typographical mistake, which occurred in<\/p>\n
Ex.P-20\/A. It could be corrected by the concerned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
at any time. The same was corrected.                Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, from such a typographical mistake. In this view of<\/p>\n
the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
18.                   No other point, was urged, by the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                      Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007
\n                                  -21-<\/span><\/p>\n
     19.                In view of the above discussion, it is held<\/p>\n
     that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence,<\/p>\n
     rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct<\/p>\n
     appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do<\/p>\n
     not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld.<\/p>\n
     20.                For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the<\/p>\n
     appeal is     dismissed.   The judgment of conviction dated<\/p>\n
     01.02.2007 and the order of sentence, dated 05.02.2007, are<\/p>\n
     upheld. If the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand<\/p>\n
     cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary<\/p>\n
     steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with<\/p>\n
     the judgment, within two months, from the date of receipt of a<\/p>\n
     certified copy of the same, keeping in view the applicability of<\/p>\n
     the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
     Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (SHAM SUNDER)
\n                                                    JUDGE
\nOctober 04, 2008
\ndinesh\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 505-SB of 2007 Date of decision.04.10.2008 Resham Kaur wife of Chamkaur Singh son of Narain Singh, resident […]<\/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-91947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nResham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 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\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-29T13:34:58+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T13:34:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":4499,\"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\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T13:34:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 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":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 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\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-29T13:34:58+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T13:34:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2"},"wordCount":4499,"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\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2","name":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh ... vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T13:34:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/resham-kaur-wife-of-chamkaur-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-4-october-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Resham Kaur Wife Of Chamkaur Singh … vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 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\/91947","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=91947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}