{"id":93368,"date":"2009-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-30T01:32:32","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T20:02:32","slug":"joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009<\/div>\n
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                          CHANDIGARH\n\n                                    Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004\n                                          Date of Decision: 19.01.2009\nJoginder Singh @ Munna\n\n                                                               Appellant\n                                 Versus\nState of Haryana\n                                                             Respondent\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate for the appellant\n            in Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004\n            Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with\n            Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the appellant\n            in Criminal Appeal No.145-DB of 2004\n            Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant\n            in Criminal Appeal No.193-DB of 2004\n            Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the State-respondent\n                              ....\n\n\nJasbir Singh, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This judgment will dispose of three appeals bearing Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.142-DB of 2004, Criminal Appeal No.145-DB and Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.193-DB of 2004, arising out of the common judgment and order<\/p>\n
dated 17.12.2003 and 20.12.2003 respectively. To dictate order, facts are<\/p>\n
being extracted from Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004.<\/p>\n
            Appellant-Joginder Singh along with Bakshish Singh son of<\/p>\n
Arjan Singh, Bhal Singh son of Singhara Singh, Bhupinder Singh son of<\/p>\n
Prithvi Pal Singh, Partap Singh son of Arjun Singh, Balwinder son of<\/p>\n
Darbara Singh and Darshan Lal son of Durga Dass, was an accused in FIR<\/p>\n
No.166 dated 27.9.1995, recorded against them for commission of offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 15 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). Vide the impugned judgment, the<\/p>\n
appellant in this appeal- Joginder Singh and Bakshish Singh -appellant in<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.145-DB of 2004 were convicted for commission of an<\/p>\n
offence under Section 15(c) of the Act. Bhal Singh – appellant in Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.193-DB of 2004 was convicted for commission of an offence<\/p>\n
under Section 25 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
            During trial, Bhupinder Singh, accused jumped bail and was<\/p>\n
declared a proclaimed offender. Vide judgment, referred to above, the trial<\/p>\n
Court, acquitted Partap Singh and Balwinder Singh of the charges framed<\/p>\n
against them.\n<\/p>\n
            It is necessary to mention here that during pendency of criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings, Darshan Lal – accused, on an application moved in this Court,<\/p>\n
was ordered to be discharged.\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court on 20.12.2003, sentenced the appellant Joginder<\/p>\n
Singh and Bakshish Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
14 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.50 lacs each, under Section 15(c) of the Act<\/p>\n
with a default clause. Co-accused Bhal Singh was sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.50<\/p>\n
lacs for commission of an offence under Section 25 of the Act with a default<\/p>\n
clause. Hence, these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
            Prosecution’s story, as noted by the trial Court in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
            “In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 26.9.1995 Daya<\/p>\n
            Kishan, the then DSP Tohana alongwith the staff was present at<\/p>\n
            the bridge of the canal in the area of the Mayond village for
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
          checking and patrolling and he received a secret information<\/p>\n
          that accused Bhal Singh son of Shingara Singh has stocked<\/p>\n
          heavy quantity of Chura post in his Dhani and he is a habitual<\/p>\n
          in selling of the same, if a raid be conducted, the above accused<\/p>\n
          alongwith the remaining accused persons could be apprehended<\/p>\n
          while selling the chura post. On receiving this information,<\/p>\n
          Daya Kishan, DSP reduced the same into writing and sent the<\/p>\n
          same to the SHO Police Station Jakhal through a constable. He<\/p>\n
          also furnished a wireless message to SHO Police Station, Jakhal<\/p>\n
          for reaching in the Dhani of Bhal Singh in the area of village<\/p>\n
          Sandanwas.    He also started for Dhani Bahl Singh and on<\/p>\n
          reaching Dhani Bhal Singh, he cordoned the premises of Bhal<\/p>\n
          Singh with the help of his staff. After sometime SI Raghubir SHO<\/p>\n
          Police Station, Jakhal also reached there along with his staff.<\/p>\n
          In the early morning Balbir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch was also<\/p>\n
          reached there and a raid was conducted in the Dhani and<\/p>\n
          during the raid, accused Joginder Singh, Bakshish Singh and<\/p>\n
          Bhupender Singh (since P.O.) were found sitting on a cot inside<\/p>\n
          the room of the Dhani and Partap Singh was found keeping a<\/p>\n
          watch around the Dhani and on further search some bags of<\/p>\n
          poppy husk covered with a black coloured tripoleen were found.<\/p>\n
          Daya Kishan, DSP being suspected that accused are habitual<\/p>\n
          offenders of dealing in contraband substances, served notices<\/p>\n
          under Section 50 of NDPS Act upon all the three accused<\/p>\n
          Bakshish Singh, Bhupender Singh and Joginder Singh to the
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
          effect that being suspecting of some contraband substance, he<\/p>\n
          intend to take the search of their Dhani and if they so desire, a<\/p>\n
          Gazetted officer or a Magistrate can be called at the spot.<\/p>\n
          Notices were read over and explained to the accused persons,<\/p>\n
          who signed and thumb marked the same. As per their respective<\/p>\n
          replies, all the accused persons named above reposed<\/p>\n
          confidence in the police party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.    Thereafter, on search of the bags, it was found that there<\/p>\n
          were 73 bags containing poppy husk stocked in the room. One<\/p>\n
          weighing scale alongwith some weights of 5 kg, 2 kg., 1 kg., 200<\/p>\n
          grams, 100 grams etc. were also found there. Daya Kishan,<\/p>\n
          DSP conducted the investigations and separated a sample of<\/p>\n
          200 grams from each of the bag and converted all the samples<\/p>\n
          into sealed parcel sealed with the seal of DK. On weighment of<\/p>\n
          the remainder, it was found that there was 44 kg. 800 grams<\/p>\n
          poppy straw in the each of the bag and the same was also<\/p>\n
          converted into sealed parcel.        The entire case property<\/p>\n
          alongwith the sample, weighing scale, weights etc. were taken<\/p>\n
          into police possession as per separate seizure memo.<\/p>\n
          Thereafter, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses at<\/p>\n
          the spot and prepared the rough site plan of the place of<\/p>\n
          recovery with correct marginal notes. All the three accused<\/p>\n
          named above were formally arrested.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          It is apparent from the facts extracted above, that the appellant –<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Joginder Singh, co-accused Bakshish Singh and Bhupinder Singh were
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
arrested at the spot. During interrogation, they intimated the investigating<\/p>\n
officer that the contraband in question was supplied to them by Balwinder<\/p>\n
Singh and Darshan Lal. Bhal Singh was also arrayed as an accused being<\/p>\n
owner of Dhani, from where contraband was recovered.          Partap Singh,<\/p>\n
Darshan Lal and Balwinder Singh were not shown as accused in the final<\/p>\n
report, put in Court, for trial.   However, subsequent thereto, after re-<\/p>\n
investigation, they were also shown as accused and a supplementary challan<\/p>\n
was put in Court for their trial. All the accused were charge sheeted on<\/p>\n
20.5.1999.     As has been mentioned earlier, accused Darshan Lal was<\/p>\n
discharged by this Court, by passing an order in Criminal Misc. No.998 of<\/p>\n
1999 on 25.2.2002. Accordingly, his name was deleted from the list of<\/p>\n
accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
              To the charge sheet, all the accused pleaded not guilty and<\/p>\n
claimed trial. The prosecution produced nine witnesses and also brought on<\/p>\n
record documentary evidence to prove its case.         On closure of the<\/p>\n
prosecution’s evidence, separate statements of all the accused were recorded<\/p>\n
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put<\/p>\n
to them, which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication.<\/p>\n
However, they led no evidence in defence.\n<\/p>\n
              The trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record, acquitted<\/p>\n
Partap Singh and Balwinder Singh accused, however, appellant Joginder<\/p>\n
Singh, co-accused Bakshish Singh and Bhal Singh were held guilty. They<\/p>\n
were convicted and sentenced vide judgment, under challenge, as mentioned<\/p>\n
in earlier part of this order.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
            Counsel for the appellant Shri .D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate has<\/p>\n
vehemently contended that there was non-compliance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 42(2) of the Act. Alleged secret information against the accused was<\/p>\n
not reduced into writing and it was not forwarded to the superior officers. He<\/p>\n
further argued that as per version of the prosecution, three accused, namely,<\/p>\n
Joginder Singh, Bakshish Singh and Bhupinder Singh were found sitting in a<\/p>\n
room from where 73 bags of poppy husk were recovered. The poppy husk<\/p>\n
was lying covered under black polythene sheet. By making reference to the<\/p>\n
statements made by the prosecution witnesses, he argued that one material<\/p>\n
witness has stated that all the three, above named accused, were sitting on a<\/p>\n
cot outside the room, which was owned by Bhal Singh. The appellant and his<\/p>\n
co-accused, namely, Bakshish Singh has no relation with Bhal Singh. They<\/p>\n
belong to different villages and were falsely implicated in this case. Their<\/p>\n
conscious possession over the contraband was not proved. He further argued<\/p>\n
that independent witness though joined, was not examined during trial. There<\/p>\n
was delay of 15 days in sending sample of the contraband for chemical<\/p>\n
examination. Sample impression of the seal on a paper was not created and<\/p>\n
the seal, after use, was not handed over to the independent witness. He<\/p>\n
further brought it to our notice that only one sample parcel was sent for<\/p>\n
chemical examination.      He further submitted that as per prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence, raid was conducted at 8.00 AM on 26.9.1995.\n<\/p>\n
            Seizure memo was prepared at 8.40 AM.              Counsel, Shri<\/p>\n
Ganeriwala argued that within 40 minutes it would not have been possible for<\/p>\n
the police party to separate 73 samples and weigh 73 bags of poppy husk. He
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
argued that appeal be allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the<\/p>\n
appellants be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             Shri K.S.Dhaliwal, who has put in appearance for the legal heirs<\/p>\n
of the deceased Bhal Singh, argued that above said appellant-accused was not<\/p>\n
available at the spot, the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence, worth<\/p>\n
the name to prove that the room from where contraband was recovered was<\/p>\n
his ownership.    By making reference to Jamabandi (Ex.PB) and Khasra<\/p>\n
Girdawari (Ex.PC), he argued that Bhal Singh was not owner of the property,<\/p>\n
in dispute. He prayed that conviction awarded to above said accused be also<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
             First of all we will deal with the case of Joginder Singh and<\/p>\n
Bakshish Singh, appellants. As per case of the prosecution when raid was<\/p>\n
conducted in early hours of 26th of September 1995 at the Dhani (out house)<\/p>\n
of Bhal Singh, above named accused along with Bhupinder Singh was found<\/p>\n
sitting on a cot in the room from where 73 bags of poppy husk were<\/p>\n
recovered. Admittedly, those bags were lying covered with a black polythene<\/p>\n
sheet. On suspicion, notice was served upon the above said accused. PW6<\/p>\n
SI Raghbir Singh has deposed that all the three accused were found sitting on<\/p>\n
a cot outside the room from where contraband was recovered. PW6 named<\/p>\n
above and PW7 Daya Krishan Bhardawaj, DSP (IO) have candidly admitted<\/p>\n
that the above named accused do not have any connection with the said<\/p>\n
Dhani or Bhal Singh, who was alleged to be the owner. It was further<\/p>\n
admitted by them that family members of the inhabitants of Dhani were<\/p>\n
present and they were doing their own work. It was further deposed by them<\/p>\n
that they had not joined any other inhabitant of the Dhani in the investigation.
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
It is further an admitted fact that Partap Singh was found doing the guard<\/p>\n
duty near the Dhani, however, initially, neither he was arrested nor joined as<\/p>\n
an accused. During re-investigation, supplementary challan was put against<\/p>\n
him by naming him as one of the accused. Admittedly appellants were not<\/p>\n
known to the police officials, how their identity was established, it has not<\/p>\n
come on record. Independent witness was joined, however, not produced in<\/p>\n
Court simply by stating that the witness was won over by the appellants. No<\/p>\n
attempt was made by the police officials to know whether the appellants were<\/p>\n
owners of the contraband in dispute and further that how it was transported to<\/p>\n
and had come to the place of recovery. Bhupinder Singh (PO) is resident of<\/p>\n
Sirsa, Joginder Singh appellant is resident of Suba Khera and Bakshish Singh<\/p>\n
is resident of village Rupanwali present Dharsul Khurd. They were not<\/p>\n
related to Bhal Singh. Under these circumstances, their conscious possession<\/p>\n
over the contraband in dispute cannot be presumed.             Under similar<\/p>\n
circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.<\/p>\n
Balkar Singh and<\/a> another ((2004) 3 SCC 582, have noticed as under:-<\/p>\n
                   “We heard the counsel for the appellant. The High Court<\/p>\n
            by the impugned judgment stated that the prosecution failed to<\/p>\n
            prove that these respondents were in conscious possession of<\/p>\n
            the poppy husk recovered by the police. The evidence by the<\/p>\n
            prosecution consisted of the testimony of PW1 Balbir Singh and<\/p>\n
            PW2 ASI Jarnail Singh. Both these witnesses deposed that they<\/p>\n
            found the respondents sitting on the bags of poppy husk. The<\/p>\n
            recovery was effected from a field in Village Lohgarh. The<\/p>\n
            respondents belonged to different villages.      The respondent
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
            Balkar Singh is a resident of village Bira Bedi in District Hisar<\/p>\n
            while respondent Munish Chand is a resident of Farukhabad.<\/p>\n
            The police did not make any investigation as to how these 100<\/p>\n
            bags of poppy husk were transported to the place of incident.<\/p>\n
            They also did not adduce any evidence to show the ownership of<\/p>\n
            the poppy husk. The presence of the respondents at the place<\/p>\n
            from where the bags of poppy husk were recovered itself was<\/p>\n
            taken as possession of these bags by the police. In fairness, the<\/p>\n
            police should have conducted further investigation to prove that<\/p>\n
            these accused were really in possession of these articles. The<\/p>\n
            failure to give any satisfactory explanation by the accused for<\/p>\n
            being present on that place itself does not prove that they were<\/p>\n
            in possession of these articles. Though the respondents raised a<\/p>\n
            plea before the Sessions Court, the same was not considered by<\/p>\n
            the Sessions Judge in the manner in which it should have been<\/p>\n
            considered.   We do not think that the High Court erred in<\/p>\n
            holding that there was no evidence to prove that the respondents<\/p>\n
            were in conscious possession of the poppy husk recovered by the<\/p>\n
            police. The prosecution failed to discharge its obligation to<\/p>\n
            prove the possession of the poppy husk by the respondents. We<\/p>\n
            do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the High<\/p>\n
            Court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Similarly, in Avtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2002) 7<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 419, it was held that merely because some accused was<\/p>\n
found sitting on the bags containing contraband, in the absence of proof of
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
anything more, that accused cannot be presumed to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
contraband. A Full Bench of this Court in Kashmir Singh versus State of<\/p>\n
Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 477, has specifically held that to raise<\/p>\n
presumption against an accused under the Act, it is necessary that a specific<\/p>\n
question be put to the accused regarding his conscious possession of the<\/p>\n
contraband when recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.          In the<\/p>\n
present case, no such question appears to have been put to the appellants<\/p>\n
when their statements were recorded as above. The facts of the case are such<\/p>\n
that reasonable presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act could not<\/p>\n
have been raised against the appellants to convict them.<\/p>\n
             Furthermore, it has come on record that neither the investigating<\/p>\n
officer Daya Krishan Bhardawaj DSP (PW7) nor SI Raghbir Singh (PW6)<\/p>\n
have stated that sample impression of the seal used was prepared at the time<\/p>\n
of recovery. This fact also does not find any mention in the recovery memo<\/p>\n
(Ex.PL). Malkhana Head Constable Bani Singh in his affidavit (Ex.PD) has<\/p>\n
no where stated that any sample of seal impression was deposited with him.<\/p>\n
Similarly, no mention of above said seal impression found in Ex.PE affidavit<\/p>\n
of Constable Rai Singh, who has deposited sample of contraband in Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory. Investigating Officer states that seal, after use was<\/p>\n
handed over to independent witness, however, PW6 Raghbir Singh states tha<\/p>\n
seal after use was handed over to him.     To the contrary, report of Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory (Ex.PV) indicates that specimen of the seal was handed<\/p>\n
over in the laboratory for verification, who created that sample impression,<\/p>\n
how reached at the Forensic Science Laboratory, is a complete mystery.<\/p>\n
Above said facts create a hole in the story of the prosecution.
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
            Contention of counsel for the appellant is correct that sample of<\/p>\n
contraband was deposited with the Forensic Science Laboratory after a gap of<\/p>\n
about 15 days. Under normal circumstances, unless prejudice to the accused<\/p>\n
is proved, delayed deposit of sample may not be very relevant but in the<\/p>\n
present case, facts are such, that the above said fact, we feel, is very<\/p>\n
important to decide culpability of the appellants. A Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court, in Parminder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 495,<\/p>\n
has held that delay of 25 days in depositing sample parcels in Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory was fatal to the case of the prosecution. Bhal Singh had<\/p>\n
died during pendency of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            Reading of affidavit of Mani Singh, Head Constable (Ex.PD)<\/p>\n
shows that the sample parcels were deposited with him on 27.9.1995 whereas<\/p>\n
the recovery was made on 26.9.1995. This witness further states that the<\/p>\n
aforesaid samples of poppy husk along with specimen seal, were sent to<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory through Rai Singh, Constable No.1564, whereas<\/p>\n
Rai Singh, in his affidavit (Ex.PE) had categorically stated that he was<\/p>\n
handed over only one parcel containing 250 grams of poppy husk sealed with<\/p>\n
seal ‘DK’ on 21.5.1995. This witness further deposed that he has handed<\/p>\n
over only one packet of poppy husk in the Forensic Science Laboratory.<\/p>\n
This witness does not talk of sample of seal at all, whereas report made by<\/p>\n
the Forensic Laboratory (Ex.PV) talks of 73 samples and seal also. Above<\/p>\n
said facts are sufficient to create a doubt with regard to case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Furthermore, as per deposition made by Investigating Officer,<\/p>\n
Daya Krishan Bhardawaj, DSP (PW7) he had cordoned off Dhani in question<\/p>\n
at about 12 at night. SI Raghbir Singh (PW6) also reached at the spot after
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
some time. However, raid was conducted only at 8.00 AM in the morning.<\/p>\n
Why the police party continued to wait for 8 hours is very surprising. Balkar<\/p>\n
Singh, an independent witness arrived at the spot at about 7\/8 AM. Notices<\/p>\n
to the accused were served thereafter. Recovery memo was prepared at 8.40<\/p>\n
AM. During this period of about one hour, this Court feels that it was not<\/p>\n
possible for the police party to weigh 73 bags of poppy husk (only one<\/p>\n
weighing scale was available) and separate 73 sample parcels from it. It<\/p>\n
appears that raid was conducted during night and with a view to ward off<\/p>\n
rigor of Section 42 of the Act, story was propagated that after cordoning off<\/p>\n
the area at about 12 noon in the night, raid was conducted between 7 to 8 in<\/p>\n
the morning.\n<\/p>\n
               So far as Bhal Singh, appellant is concerned, he was not arrested<\/p>\n
at the spot.      Secret information was received by PW7 Daya Krishan<\/p>\n
Bhardawaj, DSP that above said Bhal Singh has kept contraband in his out<\/p>\n
house, on raid the same can be recovered. Admittedly, Bhal Sinhg was not<\/p>\n
found present at the spot. It has come on record that Bhal Singh has three<\/p>\n
sons, who are married. It was specifically admitted by PW6 and PW7 that<\/p>\n
other inhabitants of the Dhani were available at the spot, however, they were<\/p>\n
not associated in the investigation. None out of them was confronted as to<\/p>\n
how huge quantity of contraband was lying from where it was recovered.<\/p>\n
PW7 has specifically admitted that ’till the time investigation remained with<\/p>\n
him he could not collect proof regarding ownership of Dhani to be of Bhal<\/p>\n
Singh.’    Similarly, PW3 Inspector Rajender Singh, who has partly<\/p>\n
investigated the case, has stated that there was no other evidence against Bhal<\/p>\n
Singh except the statements of witnesses already recorded by Daya Krishan
\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
Bhardawaj, DSP.      To prove ownership of Dhani, the prosecution has<\/p>\n
produced Bhupinder Singh, Patwari as PW1. His examination in chief reads<\/p>\n
thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “I have brought the summoned record. The site plan<\/p>\n
             Ex.PA was drawn by me. This site plan is for the Dhani of Bhal<\/p>\n
             Singh and others. Its marginal notes are in my hand and they<\/p>\n
             are true to the spot. It was prepared be me in the presence of<\/p>\n
             Balbir Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of village Sadhanwas. Ex.PB is the<\/p>\n
             copy of Jamabandi for the year 1990-91. Ex.PC is the copy of<\/p>\n
             khasra girdawari for the crops from kharif 94 to kharif 95.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             This witness has admitted that Bhal Singh has three sons and<\/p>\n
probably all of them are married. Prosecution’s allegation that Dhani belongs<\/p>\n
to Bhal Singh is belied when we look into the Jamabandi (Ex.PB) and Khasra<\/p>\n
Girdawari (Ex.PC), brought on record by PW1. In above said documents in<\/p>\n
the column of ownership, Bhal Singh’s name does not figure. In the column<\/p>\n
of cultivation, he has been shown in cultivation to the extent of 428th share in<\/p>\n
the total property. In both the documents, there is no entry that in the khasra<\/p>\n
nos. given therein, there exists any construction on any part of the land.<\/p>\n
             In view of above, we feel that conviction of Bhal Singh, by<\/p>\n
invoking provisions of Section 25 of the Act, was not justified. We are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of all the three<\/p>\n
appellants beyond a shadow of doubt accordingly, we allow all the three<\/p>\n
appeals, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                              (Jasbir Singh)\n                                                 Judge\n Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004                  14<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n19.1.2009                           (Jora Singh)\ngk                                     Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.142-DB of 2004 Date of Decision: 19.01.2009 Joginder Singh @ Munna Appellant Versus State of Haryana Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 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\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-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=\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T20:02:32+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T20:02:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3486,\"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\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T20:02:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 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":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 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\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T20:02:32+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T20:02:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009"},"wordCount":3486,"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\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009","name":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T20:02:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joginder-singh-munna-vs-state-of-haryana-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joginder Singh @ Munna vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 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\/93368","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=93368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}