Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana

Decided On : Jan-22-1999

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'V.K. Bali',
			(int) 1 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 2 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 3 => 'RI',
			(int) 4 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 6 => 'Ranvir Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 8 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 9 => 'Librarian',
			(int) 10 => 'Ranbir Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 12 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 13 => 'Caste Jat',
			(int) 14 => 'Model Town',
			(int) 15 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 16 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 17 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 18 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 19 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 20 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 21 => 'Bachao-Bachao'',
			(int) 22 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 24 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 25 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 26 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 27 => 'D. D. Sharma',
			(int) 28 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 29 => 'Singh',
			(int) 30 => 'Dharambir Singh',
			(int) 31 => 'Singh',
			(int) 32 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 33 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 34 => 'Subhash Mathur',
			(int) 35 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 36 => 'PN/2',
			(int) 37 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 38 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 39 => 'I. Stab',
			(int) 40 => 'Anil Kumar',
			(int) 41 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 42 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 43 => 'Ahlmad',
			(int) 44 => 'Rajesh Kumar',
			(int) 45 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 46 => 'Sat Narain',
			(int) 47 => 'Sunil Arora',
			(int) 48 => 'Ex',
			(int) 49 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 50 => 'Principal',
			(int) 51 => 'Library',
			(int) 52 => 'Ranbir Singh',
			(int) 53 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 54 => 'Sarpanch',
			(int) 55 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 56 => 'Shiv Charan',
			(int) 57 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 58 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 59 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 60 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 61 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 62 => 'Ram Kumar',
			(int) 63 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 64 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 65 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 66 => 'Babu',
			(int) 67 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 68 => 'Clerk',
			(int) 69 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 70 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 71 => 'Singh',
			(int) 72 => 'Rajiv, Badlu,',
			(int) 73 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 74 => 'memos Ex',
			(int) 75 => 'Chattar Singh',
			(int) 76 => 'Shamsher Singh',
			(int) 77 => 'Siri Bhagwan',
			(int) 78 => 'Kumar Sehrawat',
			(int) 79 => 'DW',
			(int) 80 => 'Singh Ahlawat',
			(int) 81 => 'Daya Chand',
			(int) 82 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 83 => 'Rajiv',
			(int) 84 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 85 => 'Challan under',
			(int) 86 => 'Rajiv',
			(int) 87 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 88 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 89 => 'Manish Malik',
			(int) 90 => 'Shri Mohinder Singh Malik',
			(int) 91 => 'Shri Devi Dass',
			(int) 92 => 'MLA',
			(int) 93 => 'Jai Singh',
			(int) 94 => 'Dharambir Singh',
			(int) 95 => 'Sohan Lal',
			(int) 96 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 97 => 'Malik Sobh Raj',
			(int) 98 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 99 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 100 => 'Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex',
			(int) 101 => 'Suraj Bhan',
			(int) 102 => 'Dabarpur',
			(int) 103 => 'Prem',
			(int) 104 => 'Khewara',
			(int) 105 => 'Asawarpur',
			(int) 106 => 'Aswarpur',
			(int) 107 => 'Khewara',
			(int) 108 => 'Aswarpur',
			(int) 109 => 'P.S. Mann',
			(int) 110 => 'Shri T. P.S. Mann',
			(int) 111 => 'N. K. Sanghi',
			(int) 112 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 113 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 114 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 115 => 'Jot Ram PW',
			(int) 116 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 117 => 'Jaivir Singh',
			(int) 118 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 119 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 120 => 'Grah Parvesh'',
			(int) 121 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 122 => 'Ex',
			(int) 123 => 'Jaideep'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J. 1',
			(int) 1 => 'six months',
			(int) 2 => 'three months',
			(int) 3 => 'March 5, 1998',
			(int) 4 => '1998',
			(int) 5 => '1998',
			(int) 6 => 'March 5, 1998',
			(int) 7 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 8 => 'that day',
			(int) 9 => 'the previous winter',
			(int) 10 => 'September 22, 1992',
			(int) 11 => 'about one week',
			(int) 12 => 'the same day',
			(int) 13 => 'about one week',
			(int) 14 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 15 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 16 => 'the same day',
			(int) 17 => 'the same day',
			(int) 18 => 'September 19, 1992',
			(int) 19 => 'September 29, 1992',
			(int) 20 => 'September 19, 1992',
			(int) 21 => '1992',
			(int) 22 => 'February 3, 1992',
			(int) 23 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 24 => 'the day',
			(int) 25 => 'that day',
			(int) 26 => 'about two years',
			(int) 27 => 'the day',
			(int) 28 => 'the day',
			(int) 29 => 'the day',
			(int) 30 => 'October 6, 1992',
			(int) 31 => 'September 22, 1992',
			(int) 32 => 'September 24, 1992',
			(int) 33 => 'the first three years',
			(int) 34 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 35 => 'September 18, 1992 Dr.',
			(int) 36 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 37 => 'that day',
			(int) 38 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 39 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 40 => 'last year',
			(int) 41 => 'about fifteen days',
			(int) 42 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 43 => '3-4 days',
			(int) 44 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 45 => 'the same day',
			(int) 46 => 'the next day',
			(int) 47 => 'September 19, 1992'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 1 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 2 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 5 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 6 => 'Rajesh'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S. 34',
			(int) 1 => 'S. 34',
			(int) 2 => 'IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'the Additional Sessions',
			(int) 4 => 'Crl',
			(int) 5 => 'Crl',
			(int) 6 => 'SI Siri Chand',
			(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 8 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 9 => 'College',
			(int) 10 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 11 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 12 => 'the Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 13 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 14 => 'Hari Ram',
			(int) 15 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 16 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 17 => 'Jaideep and Dharmavir',
			(int) 18 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 19 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 20 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 21 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 22 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 24 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 25 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
			(int) 26 => 'the Civil Hospital',
			(int) 27 => 'the Civil Hospital',
			(int) 28 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
			(int) 29 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 30 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 31 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 32 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 33 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 36 => 'Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital',
			(int) 37 => 'Medical Officer',
			(int) 38 => 'General Hospital',
			(int) 39 => 'Jaibir',
			(int) 40 => 'the Incharge, Police Post',
			(int) 41 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 42 => 'the Incharge Police Post',
			(int) 43 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 44 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 45 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 46 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 47 => 'the Court of CJM',
			(int) 48 => 'State',
			(int) 49 => 'the Court of CJM',
			(int) 50 => 'CJM',
			(int) 51 => 'Arts Block of the College',
			(int) 52 => 'Arts Block',
			(int) 53 => 'Gohana Sonepat',
			(int) 54 => 'Anand Cinema',
			(int) 55 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 56 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 57 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 58 => 'Chowk',
			(int) 59 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 60 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 61 => 'Shisham',
			(int) 62 => 'Old Civil Hospital',
			(int) 63 => 'Court',
			(int) 64 => 'Greh-Parvesh'',
			(int) 65 => 'Greh Parvesh',
			(int) 66 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 67 => 'House',
			(int) 68 => 'IPC',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'PW 6 Jot Ram',
			(int) 71 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 72 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 73 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 74 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 75 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 76 => 'CRZ School',
			(int) 77 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 78 => 'Atlas Factory',
			(int) 79 => 'CRZ School',
			(int) 80 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 81 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 82 => 'Shisham',
			(int) 83 => 'P.C. P.W.',
			(int) 84 => 'Dharamvir',
			(int) 85 => 'PZ',
			(int) 86 => 'the Vigilance Branch',
			(int) 87 => 'Rajiv, Anand',
			(int) 88 => 'Court',
			(int) 89 => 'DW',
			(int) 90 => 'the House Tax Assessment Register',
			(int) 91 => 'DSP',
			(int) 92 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 93 => 'PP',
			(int) 94 => 'General Hospital',
			(int) 95 => 'D.S.P. City Ballabgarh',
			(int) 96 => 'the Inspector General of Police',
			(int) 97 => 'IPC',
			(int) 98 => 'DW',
			(int) 99 => 'Smt',
			(int) 100 => 'the Crime Branch',
			(int) 101 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 102 => 'Bar',
			(int) 103 => 'the house of one',
			(int) 104 => 'Sham',
			(int) 105 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 106 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 107 => 'D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya',
			(int) 108 => 'Thakur',
			(int) 109 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 110 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 111 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 112 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 113 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 114 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 115 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 116 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 119 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 120 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 121 => 'Court',
			(int) 122 => 'Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.I.',
			(int) 1 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 2 => 'Anand',
			(int) 3 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 4 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 5 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 6 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 7 => 'Anand',
			(int) 8 => 'Mukhtiara',
			(int) 9 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 10 => 'Katha',
			(int) 11 => 'Anand',
			(int) 12 => 'Anand',
			(int) 13 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 14 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 15 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 16 => 'Anand',
			(int) 17 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 18 => 'PW',
			(int) 19 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 20 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 21 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 22 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 23 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 24 => 'P.S.',
			(int) 25 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 26 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 27 => 'Singh',
			(int) 28 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 29 => 'PW',
			(int) 30 => 'sonepat',
			(int) 31 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 32 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 33 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 34 => 'Village Rathdana',
			(int) 35 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 36 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 37 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 38 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 39 => 'Anand',
			(int) 40 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 41 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 42 => 'Cr',
			(int) 43 => 'Siri Chand',
			(int) 44 => 'Cr',
			(int) 45 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 46 => 'Gopal Chand',
			(int) 47 => 'D.G.P.',
			(int) 48 => 'Anand',
			(int) 49 => 'Cr',
			(int) 50 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 51 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 52 => 'Bablu',
			(int) 53 => 'Anand',
			(int) 54 => 'Cr',
			(int) 55 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 56 => 'Anand',
			(int) 57 => 'Anand',
			(int) 58 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 59 => 'Dehradoon',
			(int) 60 => 'Anand',
			(int) 61 => 'Malik',
			(int) 62 => 'Bandri',
			(int) 63 => 'Model Town',
			(int) 64 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 65 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 66 => 'Kala',
			(int) 67 => 'Pardhan',
			(int) 68 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 69 => 'PW',
			(int) 70 => 'PW',
			(int) 71 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 72 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 73 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 74 => 'PW',
			(int) 75 => 'PW',
			(int) 76 => 'PW',
			(int) 77 => 'PW',
			(int) 78 => 'Anand',
			(int) 79 => 'PW',
			(int) 80 => 'PW',
			(int) 81 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 82 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 83 => 'Rathdana',
			(int) 84 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 85 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 86 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 87 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 88 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 89 => 'PW',
			(int) 90 => 'Anand',
			(int) 91 => 'Anand',
			(int) 92 => 'Sonepat'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 3 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 4 => 'Hindu',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 6 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 7 => 'Jaivir'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '442',
			(int) 1 => '140',
			(int) 2 => '2. Before',
			(int) 3 => '3.',
			(int) 4 => '6',
			(int) 5 => '4.40',
			(int) 6 => '19',
			(int) 7 => '4',
			(int) 8 => '5.',
			(int) 9 => 'up to',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '3',
			(int) 12 => '3.00',
			(int) 13 => '4',
			(int) 14 => '5',
			(int) 15 => '6',
			(int) 16 => '6',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '3',
			(int) 19 => '167',
			(int) 20 => '3',
			(int) 21 => '6',
			(int) 22 => 'about 150',
			(int) 23 => 'one',
			(int) 24 => 'about 7-8',
			(int) 25 => '10-12',
			(int) 26 => 'about 15-16',
			(int) 27 => 'about half',
			(int) 28 => 'about 4000-4250',
			(int) 29 => '312/19',
			(int) 30 => '19',
			(int) 31 => 'two',
			(int) 32 => '19',
			(int) 33 => 'One',
			(int) 34 => '10+2',
			(int) 35 => 'about 12',
			(int) 36 => '9',
			(int) 37 => '11',
			(int) 38 => '8',
			(int) 39 => '1.',
			(int) 40 => '312',
			(int) 41 => '390',
			(int) 42 => '391',
			(int) 43 => '967',
			(int) 44 => 'four',
			(int) 45 => '10',
			(int) 46 => '3',
			(int) 47 => '4',
			(int) 48 => '5',
			(int) 49 => 'a couple of hundred',
			(int) 50 => 'one',
			(int) 51 => 'one',
			(int) 52 => '6',
			(int) 53 => 'one',
			(int) 54 => 'more than',
			(int) 55 => 'about one and half months',
			(int) 56 => 'one',
			(int) 57 => 'one',
			(int) 58 => '8',
			(int) 59 => 'one',
			(int) 60 => 'about 4-30 p.m.',
			(int) 61 => 'two/two and half months',
			(int) 62 => '9',
			(int) 63 => '6',
			(int) 64 => '6',
			(int) 65 => '6',
			(int) 66 => '6',
			(int) 67 => '10',
			(int) 68 => '6',
			(int) 69 => 'one',
			(int) 70 => '11',
			(int) 71 => '12',
			(int) 72 => '13'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6-15 p.m.',
			(int) 1 => 'about 1.45 p.m.',
			(int) 2 => '2-15 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => '10 a.m.',
			(int) 4 => 'within few minutes',
			(int) 5 => '24 hours',
			(int) 6 => 'Lunch hours',
			(int) 7 => '1 to 2 p.m.',
			(int) 8 => '1 p.m.',
			(int) 9 => 'about 1-15 p.m.',
			(int) 10 => 'about 20 minutes',
			(int) 11 => '2-3 minutes',
			(int) 12 => 'about 3 p.m.',
			(int) 13 => 'about 3.45/4 p.m.',
			(int) 14 => '8 am to 1 p.m.',
			(int) 15 => 'about five minutes',
			(int) 16 => '2-3 minutes',
			(int) 17 => '18-9-1992',
			(int) 18 => '8 a.m. to 2 p.m.',
			(int) 19 => '2 p.m. to',
			(int) 20 => '8 a.m.',
			(int) 21 => '10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.',
			(int) 22 => 'about 12 noon',
			(int) 23 => '3 p.m.',
			(int) 24 => '20 hours',
			(int) 25 => 'about 1 p.m.',
			(int) 26 => 'about 45 minutes',
			(int) 27 => '1-45 p.m.',
			(int) 28 => '4-40 p.m.',
			(int) 29 => 'five minutes',
			(int) 30 => 'about three hours',
			(int) 31 => 'about three hours'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'fifth',
			(int) 2 => 'first',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 1 => '3.0 cm',
			(int) 2 => '8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary',
			(int) 3 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 4 => '8 cm',
			(int) 5 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '2.5 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 7 => '3.5 cm x 2.0 cm',
			(int) 8 => '5 cm',
			(int) 9 => '12 cm',
			(int) 10 => '1 cm x 0.5 cm',
			(int) 11 => '2 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 12 => '2.0 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 13 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
			(int) 14 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
			(int) 15 => 'about 150 meters',
			(int) 16 => 'about one kilometre',
			(int) 17 => 'about five kilometres',
			(int) 18 => 'around one kilometer',
			(int) 19 => 'about one kilometer',
			(int) 20 => 'about half kilometer',
			(int) 21 => 'five kilometres',
			(int) 22 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 23 => '3.0 cm'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Municipal'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mastan',
			(int) 1 => 'Mastan',
			(int) 2 => 'the Atlas Cycle's',
			(int) 3 => 'the Rest House'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '613315',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 324',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'Sukhbir and Others',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State v. Rajesh Kumar and;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate and; T.P.S. Mann, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' N.K. Sanghi, Dy. Advocate General (Hy),; Ss. Namla, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B. Rai and; V.K. Bali, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Bali, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whereas, Sukhbir, Dharambir and Rajesh alias Pappu, real brothers, who have since been held guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, for having intentionally committed the murder of Jaideep as also under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months for having caused injuries to Jaivir, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated March 5, 1998, through present appeal filed by them seek setting aside of the said order, Jot Ram, complainant, who has preferred Crl. Revision No. 442 of 1998 and which revision has been ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998 seeks more deterrent punishment to the appellants as also compensation on account of death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Before, however, the rival contentions for and against the order of conviction and sentence dated March 5, 1998, as canvassed by learned counsel for the parties are noticed it shall be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants and the present appeal. It requires to be mentioned here that the appellants herein were tried along with their co-accused Ranvir Singh and Anand, who have since been acquitted. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir came to be reported to the police by Jot Ram, P.W. 6. He made a statement before SI Siri Chand on September 18, 1992 at 4.40, on the basis of which special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Sonepat at 6-15 p.m. on the same date. While unfolding the events leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir, he stated that he was residing in village Rathdhana. He was working as an Assistant Librarian in Hindu College, Sonepat. As usual, that day he had gone to his house for taking lunch from the College and after taking his lunch, his son, namely, Ranbir Singh was going to leave him at the college on a cycle. When he reached Subhash Chowk at about 1.45 p.m. on the bicycle with his son, Sukhbir Singh, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir sons of Mukhtiara, Caste Jat, resident of Rathdhana, at present Model Town, Sonepat, with their common intention, rushed from behind the side of Katha quarters' to the Subhash Chowk. Immediately, on reaching there, they surrounded his son Jaivir and his nephew Jaideep son of Hari Ram, who, after college hours, were standing at Subhash Chowk and waiting for a bus or scooter. Ranbir took Jaideep into his grip from behind. Sukhbir and Rajesh were armed with swords. Anand and Dharambir were armed with knifes. Sukhbir thrust his sword from its sharp side in the chest of Jaideep and Dharmavir gave a knife blow in the chest of Jaideep, as a result of which Jaideep fell on the ground with his face downward. Then Rajesh inflicted injuries with sword on his back. When Jaivir tried to rescue Jaideep, then Anand gave a knife blow to him which hit on his right arm. Thereafter, Dharambir made the face of Jaideep onward and gave a knife blow on his abdomen and gave second knife blow on his left thigh. He and his son Ranbir raised an alarm of 'Bachao-Bachao'. On hearing their noise, Sukhbir, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. He and his son Ranbir chased to catch them but they ran away through the streets. When he came back to the spot, Jaivir and Jaideep were not found at the spot and on enquiry be came to know that some people had taken them to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Then, he and his son Ranbir went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat to enquire about Jaivir and Jaideep and he came to know that Jaideep had succumbed to his injuries whereas Jaivir was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that the cause of dispute was that Pardeep, elder brother of Jaideep had contested Municipal election from Ward No. 19, Sonepat against Sukhbir, who had asked Pardeep many times not to contest the election but Pardeep did not withdraw his name from the election. Due to this grudge, Sukhbir and his brothers had caused injuries to Jaivir in the previous winter and the said case was pending in the Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and their co-accused, Ranbir and Anand, who, as mentioned above, has since been acquitted, prosecution examined Dr. D. D. Sharma, Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital, Sonepat as PW. 4. He stated that on September 22, 1992 while posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, he medico legally examined Sukhbir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. There was a scab formation with almost complete healing of the wound on the back of the left shoulder. No redness around the wound was present.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The injury was simple in nature and was caused within a duration of about one week by a blunt weapon. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Dharambir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found that there was a healed wound with scab formation on the front of his left leg. There was no tenderness or redness present around the wound. The nature of injury was simple and it was caused by a blunt weapon within a duration of about one week. He further stated that on September 18, 1992 the police had moved an application, Ex. PL vide which opinion was sought if Jaivir was fit to make a statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PL/1, declared that Jaivir was not fit to make a statement due to sedation. In his cross-examination, he stated that possibility of the said injuries by police canes could not be ruled out. P.W. 5 Dr. Subhash Mathur stated that on September 18, 1992 at 2-15 p.m. he medically examined Jaibir son of Jot Ram and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After X-ray, probable duration of injury was found to be fresh and it was caused by sharp weapon. On the same day he sent ruqa Ex. PN to the Incharge, Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat and the police moved an application, Ex. PN/1 seeking his opinion about the fitness of Jaivir for making statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PN/2 declared that Jaivir was not fit to make statement. He also sent ruqa Ex. PN/3 to the Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat on the same day. On September 19, 1992 the police made an application, Ex. PU to the same effect and vide his opinion, Ex. PO/1 he opined that Jaivir was fit to make a statement. On September 29, 1992, police made an other application, Ex. PQ, on which he had given his opinion, Ex. PQ/1. PW. 8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, stated that on September 19, 1992 at 10 a.m. he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jaideep and foundfollowing injuries :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm with regular margin on the chest wall right side on the fifth inter-coastal space obliquely placed, probe could pass up to 8 cm in downward and backward. On further exploration, there was clean rent of pleura of size 3 cm x 2 cm Right lung showed a rent of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on upper lobe. Right pleural cavity was full of blood. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on the ebigastrium left side 5 cm lateral to midline below the costal margin. Probing, of the wound was done. The probe could pass upto 12 cm in downward and medial direction. On further exploration, there was about one liter of blood in peritoneal cavity. There was tear of menentery of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm injuring the blood vessels. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Stab wound of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the abdominal wall right lateral side lumbar region. The probe could pass upto 3.00 c.m. On further exploration, the wound was communicating with paritonial cavity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm on the left lateral wall of abdomen over the lumbar region. The wound was muscle deep. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Abrasion of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the left knee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of left thigh. The wound was muscle deep.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, right lung and injury to mesentery vessels. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. In his cross-examination he stated that the weapons were not shown to him by the police previous thereto nor hadthey sought his opinion and all the stab wounds were possible by any of the swords and the knife. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. PW. 1 Anil Kumar draftsman proved having prepared site plan, Ex. PA on the demarcation of Jot Ram, Jaivir and Ranbir. PW. 3 Rakesh Kumar, Ahlmad, attached to the Court of CJM, Sonepat, only stated that he had brought the summoned record of case No. 134/1 of 1992 titled as State v. Rajesh Kumar and others, P.S. City Sonepat which was pending in the Court of CJM, Sonepat. He also stated that he had seen FIR No. 167 dated February 3, 1992 which was part of judicial record and a copy of the same was Ex. PB. In his cross-examination, he stated that the case pending before the CJM was against Rajesh, Dharambir and Sat Narain sons of Mukhtiar Singh, residents of Rathdhana. PW. 3 Sunil Arora only deposed about having taken photographs Ex. PA to P4 from different angles of the spot. Jot Ram, the first informant, who was examined as PW. 6 deposed in tune with the statement made by him before the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that on September 18, 1992 he was on duty in the College Library which is situated in Arts Block of the College and that Arts Block is about 150 paces from the railway crossing one Gohana Sonepat road. Besides him, there were about 7-8 officials in the library. Lunch hours were from 1 to 2 p.m. He denied the suggestion that there were instructions of Principal of the college not to leave the college during lunch hours. On the day of occurrence, he did not attend the Library after lunch and an intimation to that effect was sent. An application for leave was given but he had not kept a copy thereof. On that day, he left the college for his meals at 1 p.m. on his own cycle and he reached at his residence which is in New Pancham Nagar at about 1-15 p.m. His house was at a distance of about 150 meters from Anand Cinema, sonepat and the distance between his house and Hindu College was about one kilometre. His wife, his son Ranbir singh and other family members were in the house. He further stated that he stayed at his residence for about 20 minutes and he followed the same route while going back to the college with his son Ranbir Singh. The appellants and their co-accused crossed them at Subhash Chowk from a distance of 10-12 paces. Subhash Chowk was a busy market. After the accused passed through, they followed their way to the college. At that time, they did not suspect the accused but when they encircled Jaideep, they were at a distance of about 15-16 paces. When they were near Subhash Chowk, they found the accused encircling Jaideep and his son Jaivir near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. The accused ran away through Municipal street which passes from the back of Old Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Police Post Model Town, was at a distance of about half furlong from the place of occurrence. They went to hospital on a cycle at about 3 p.m. To a Court question as to at what time the police recorded his statement in the hospital, he replied that the police recorded his statement at about 3.45/4 p.m. He denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that non ceremony regarding 'Greh-Parvesh' was separately performed nor any invitation card was printed or issued to any one. However, cards were printed at the time of marriage of his son Mastan and the said cards were only with regard to the marriage of his son. He denied the suggestion that Greh Parvesh ceremony was also performed at the time of the marriage of his son which took place about two years after the occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that his house was not in existence on the day of occurrence. On the day of occurrence, his son Mastan was Sarpanch of village Rathdhana which is at a distance of about five kilometres from Sonepat, Village Rathdana had a population of about 4000-4250 voters. All the votes of his family members at that time were prepared in village Rathdhana. He, however, again said that his son Jaivir had a vote at Sonepat in House No. 312/19. On the day of occurrence the electricity and water supply connections in respect of the said house were in his name. His nephew Jaideep and Ashok were residing in Ward No. 19, Sonepat in separate houses. They had two houses in ward No. 19 besides his own house. One house was owned by his younger brother Shiv Charan. He admitted that with regard to the same occurrence, some other persons were also challaned under S. 302, IPC and that the case was pending in the Court. He, however, denied the suggestion that they named the accused only on suspicion. PW. 7 Jaivir supported the version given by PW 6 Jot Ram in its all material details. Besides stating that accused Ranbir caught hold of Jaideep from behind and that appellant Sukhbir gave sword blow in the chest of Jaideep, he also stated that appellant Dharambir stabbed with knife in the chest of Jaideep. Thereafter, appellant Rajesh inflicted a sword blow on the back of Jaideep. When he tried to save Jaideep, accused Anand inflicted a knife blow on his right arm. Thereafter appellant Dharambir inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen and left thigh. The occurrence was witnessed by his father and brother Ranbir. In his cross-examination, he stated that at that time he was a student of 10+2 in CRZ School, Sonepat and his school timings were from 8 am to 1 p.m. Jat School must be around one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that buses and tempo did not go to their village from Subhash Chowk but only from Atlas Factory, Sonepat. He rather stated that there was no regular bus stop at the Atlas Cycle's gate and on the other hand, Subhash Chowk had a regular bus stop which was near to CRZ School. Hindu College was also at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He collected Jaideep from Hindu College and then both of them came to Subhash Chowk for boarding a bus/tempo for going to their village. They came about five minutes before the occurrence on foot. They were standing at the time of occurrence near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. His father and brother had come to their rescue. He had seen his father and brother from a distance of about 12 paces. He denied the suggestion that neither the accused attacked nor caused injuries to them nor his father and brother witnessed the occurrence. PW. 9 Inspector Ram Kumar stated that on October 6, 1992 he had prepared and submitted the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. P.W. 11 Siri Chand, Inspector deposed about the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. He also stated that on September 22, 1992 he had arrested the accused and had moved an application, Ex. PJ/1 for the medical examination of accused Sukhbir and Dharamvir. On September 24, 1992 he interrogated the accused and they made disclosure statements, Ex. PY, PY/1, PY/2 and PY/3 and pursuant thereto accused Rajesh got recovered all the weapons vide recovery memo Ex. PZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., appellant Sukhbir Singh stated that he was innocent and investigation of this case was also conducted by the Vigilance Branch and in that he was found innocent whereas Rajiv, Anand, Tilak Raj and Babu were challaned by the police and they were facing trial in the Court. Statements made by other appellants are also similar to the one made by Sukhbir Singh appellant. In their evidence, appellants examined Gopal Chand, Clerk as DW. 1. He stated that he had seen the certified copies of the House Tax Assessment Register regarding Houses bearing Nos. 312, 390 and 391. These were correct as per the house tax assessment register. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the record of the house of Jot Ram and that a newly constructed house, according to the sanctioned site plan, is exempt from house tax for the first three years, DW 2 Daya Chand, a retired police Inspector, stated that on September 18, 1992 he was posted as an Inspector, Crime Branch, Madhuban. On receipt of a wireless message of D.G.P., Haryana, he along with DSP Narinder Singh reinvestigated the case FIR No. 967 of 18-9-1992. During the course of investigation, they arrested four persons, namely, Rajiv, Badlu, Anand and Tilak Raj. On interrogation, they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got recovered nothing. He proved copies of disclosure statements, Ex. D3 to D6. His statement regarding these documents was objected to by the Public Prosecutor, being inadmissible in evidence. The witness further stated that the accused had got identified the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. D7 to D. 10. These documents were once again objected to by the PP being inadmissible in evidence. The witness also stated that he had recorded the statements of various persons under S. 161, Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know if Chattar Singh, Ramesh and Shamsher Singh, the alleged eye-witnesses, were examined in that case or not. DW. 3 Siri Bhagwan, Senior Pharmacist, General Hospital, Sonepat stated that he had brought the duty register of the doctor. On September 18, 1992 Dr. Subodh Kumar Sehrawat remained on emergency duty in the hospital from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. DW. 4 Narinder Singh Ahlawat, D.S.P. City Ballabgarh stated that this case was reinvestigated by Inspector Daya Chand under his supervision under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Haryana and during investigation the present accused were found innocent and therefore the report was made accordingly. However, Rajiv, Bablu, Anand and Tilak Raj were found having committed the murder of Jaideep. Challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was accordingly filed against the said persons, namely, Rajiv and others. In his cross-examination, he stated that he personally did not interrogate or join in investigation Jot Ram and Jaivir during re-investigation. He also did not recommend any action against them under S. 182, IPC. DW. 5 Manish Malik stated that on September 18, 1992 he was at his house as his grand mother had died and the ceremony was to be held on that day. She was known as Smt. Bhagwanti wife of Shri Shobh Raj Malik. Accused Anand was present at his residence from 10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on that day helping him in serving the guests presenting the occasion. After learning about the implication of Anand in this case, he visited the police station and narrated this incident to the investigating officer. He had also made this statement before the personnel of the Crime Branch who had questioned him in the Rest House. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was situated about half kilometer away from Subhash Chowk, Sonepat. Approximately, a couple of hundred people had attended the ceremony. Shri Mohinder Singh Malik, an Advocate the member of the Bar, was the real brother of his father. Shri Devi Dass, Ex, MLA was his maternal grandfather, Many other respectables of their town were present at the time of the ceremony there was one house intervening between his house and the house of Chaudhary Rizak Ram, Ex.-MLA. Anand and he were students of one school at Dehradoon. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a personal friend and class-mate of Anand. DW. 6 Jai Singh stated that on September 18, 1992 he was present at the house of one Sham at about 12 noon or so, along with appellant Dharambir Singh, one Malik, Sohan Lal and Bandri. They were playing cards and they disbursed after 3 p.m. The mother of Dharambir had called him from amongst them and had taken him away. He had brought all these facts to the notice of the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the house of Dharambir was located in Model Town, Sonepat. He was his neighbour. His house was located more than one kilometer away from Subhash Chowk. He did not know the location of the house of Malik Sobh Raj. The approximate distance between the house of Ch. Rizaq Ram and that of appellant Dharambir was 20 hours (sic). He had narrated all these facts to the police after about one and half months of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as a witness in this case by the defence or that his statement was false to his very knowledge, D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya stated that on September 18, 1992 at about 1 p.m. appellant Sukhbir had come to him at the tea stall of a person, namely, Thakur located opposite Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex, Sonepat, one Ch. Suraj Bhan of Ganaur and one Rambir of village Dabarpur and a couple of more persons were present there at that time. After about 45 minutes or so, they heard commotion and rushed out of the tea stall and learnt that some incident had taken place at Subhash Chowk. He had narrated this incident to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the date on which he had made statement before the police. He also did not remember the dates of Hindu festivals which had fallen last year. He was summoned by the police after about fifteen days of the occurrence at Subhash Chowk. He denied the suggestion that no such incident as narrated by him had taken place or that he was deposing falsely. DW. 8 Prem stated that he was running a business of buffalo trading in partnership with Ranbir accused. On September 18, 1992 he along with Ranbir had gone to village Khewara where they met one Kala and took him along with them to village Asawarpur. They had gone to village Aswarpur in order to make payment to Pardhan of the said village. They came back to Sonepat at about 4-30 p.m. He was examined by the police 3-4 days after the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had no documentary proof with regard to his visit along with accused Ranbir to village Khewara and Aswarpur nor he could produce any written proof with regard to his visits with Ranbir accused on certain other occasions. He could not name the police official who examined him and recorded his statement after two/two and half months after the occurrence. Apart from this statement that he made, he did not make any effort to approach the authorities with regard to the false implication of Ranbir in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being friend of Ranbir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri T. P.S. Mann, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. From the facts as have been detailed above, it would transpire that the prosecution case is based upon the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 Jot Ram, who happens to be the first informant and jaivir, PW. 7. Jaivir, as per the prosecution version, was injured in the occurrence leading to death of Jaideep. The occurrence leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir had taken place at 1-45 p.m. on September 18, 1992 at Sonepat. Jot Ram PW. 6 lodged the first information report at 4-40 p.m. on the same day and within five minutes, the special report reached the Magistrate at Sonepat. The occurrence, in our view, came to be reported with a short span of about three hours and the special report was handed over to the concerned Magistrate very promptly. It is in this background that the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 and PW. 7 has to be appreciated. Learned counsel for the appellants has been at pains to explain to us that PW. 6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. Insofar as PW. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants but find no substance therein whatsoever. As mentioned above, the incident came to be reported to the police within about three hours from when the occurrence took place. It has come in the evidence that whereas Jaideep had succumbed to the injuries received by him at the hands of the appellants. PW. 7 Jaivir was not fit to make a statement when rushed to the hospital. If perhaps PW. 6 had not seen the occurrence, he could not have given the details thereof leading to death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir and that too within a short duration from when the occurrence had taken place. This fact, in itself establishes the presence of PW. 6 at the scene of occurrence. Much has been said about this witness having no house in the town where he is said to have gone to take his meals during interval from the place of his work. It has also been stated that this witness had a house in the village and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to have gone to his house in Sonepat where perhaps he had no house at all. We find no substance in this criticism made to the statement of P.W. 6. If no ceremony regarding 'Grah Parvesh' had separately been performed, nor any invitation cards were printed for the said occasion, it would not suggest that this witness did not have a house at Sonepat. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. Further, he had not only given the number of his house but further stated that his son Jaivir had a vote on the address of this house on the date of occurrence and that electric and water connections of the said house were in his name. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness in going to his house at Sonepat for meals. Insofar as statement of PW. 7 Jaivir is concerned, no dent at all could be made in the same except for what has been noted above. The fact that Anand has been acquitted, and that the witness stated that the received injuries at the hands of Anand. In our view, would not be enough to disbelieve the presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence. As mentioned above, he is an injured witness. He had an incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. It may be recalled that this witness was also admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. The opinion of the doctor is that the probable duration of injury was fresh. Further, when police made application, Ex. PN/1, seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Jaivir, vide Ex. PN/2 it was declared that he was not fit to make a statement. It is only on the next day, i.e., September 19, 1992 that the doctor had opined that he was fit to make a statement. It is, therefore, amply proved that this witness was injured at the same time when Jaideep was attacked by the appellants resulting into his death. The mere fact that the witness named somebody else having caused some injuries whereas the same might have been caused by one of the appellants herein, would not be enough to discard his testimony or to hold that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Even though the appellants led evidence in defence, gist whereof has been reproduced above, nothing based upon the said evidence, has been argued before this Court. We, however, hasten to add that the appellants believed in quantity of evidence and not quality thereof. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. From the facts and circumstances, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants have committed the crime, of which they were charged, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. That being so, no occasion at all arises to set aside the order recorded Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same also to stand dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Revision dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1999CriLJ2083',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '613315'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'V.K. Bali',
		(int) 1 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 2 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 3 => 'RI',
		(int) 4 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 6 => 'Ranvir Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 8 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 9 => 'Librarian',
		(int) 10 => 'Ranbir Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 12 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 13 => 'Caste Jat',
		(int) 14 => 'Model Town',
		(int) 15 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 16 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 17 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 18 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 19 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 20 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 21 => 'Bachao-Bachao'',
		(int) 22 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 24 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 25 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 26 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 27 => 'D. D. Sharma',
		(int) 28 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 29 => 'Singh',
		(int) 30 => 'Dharambir Singh',
		(int) 31 => 'Singh',
		(int) 32 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 33 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 34 => 'Subhash Mathur',
		(int) 35 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 36 => 'PN/2',
		(int) 37 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 38 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 39 => 'I. Stab',
		(int) 40 => 'Anil Kumar',
		(int) 41 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 42 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 43 => 'Ahlmad',
		(int) 44 => 'Rajesh Kumar',
		(int) 45 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 46 => 'Sat Narain',
		(int) 47 => 'Sunil Arora',
		(int) 48 => 'Ex',
		(int) 49 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 50 => 'Principal',
		(int) 51 => 'Library',
		(int) 52 => 'Ranbir Singh',
		(int) 53 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 54 => 'Sarpanch',
		(int) 55 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 56 => 'Shiv Charan',
		(int) 57 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 58 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 59 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 60 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 61 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 62 => 'Ram Kumar',
		(int) 63 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 64 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 65 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 66 => 'Babu',
		(int) 67 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 68 => 'Clerk',
		(int) 69 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 70 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 71 => 'Singh',
		(int) 72 => 'Rajiv, Badlu,',
		(int) 73 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 74 => 'memos Ex',
		(int) 75 => 'Chattar Singh',
		(int) 76 => 'Shamsher Singh',
		(int) 77 => 'Siri Bhagwan',
		(int) 78 => 'Kumar Sehrawat',
		(int) 79 => 'DW',
		(int) 80 => 'Singh Ahlawat',
		(int) 81 => 'Daya Chand',
		(int) 82 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 83 => 'Rajiv',
		(int) 84 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 85 => 'Challan under',
		(int) 86 => 'Rajiv',
		(int) 87 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 88 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 89 => 'Manish Malik',
		(int) 90 => 'Shri Mohinder Singh Malik',
		(int) 91 => 'Shri Devi Dass',
		(int) 92 => 'MLA',
		(int) 93 => 'Jai Singh',
		(int) 94 => 'Dharambir Singh',
		(int) 95 => 'Sohan Lal',
		(int) 96 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 97 => 'Malik Sobh Raj',
		(int) 98 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 99 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 100 => 'Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex',
		(int) 101 => 'Suraj Bhan',
		(int) 102 => 'Dabarpur',
		(int) 103 => 'Prem',
		(int) 104 => 'Khewara',
		(int) 105 => 'Asawarpur',
		(int) 106 => 'Aswarpur',
		(int) 107 => 'Khewara',
		(int) 108 => 'Aswarpur',
		(int) 109 => 'P.S. Mann',
		(int) 110 => 'Shri T. P.S. Mann',
		(int) 111 => 'N. K. Sanghi',
		(int) 112 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 113 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 114 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 115 => 'Jot Ram PW',
		(int) 116 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 117 => 'Jaivir Singh',
		(int) 118 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 119 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 120 => 'Grah Parvesh'',
		(int) 121 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 122 => 'Ex',
		(int) 123 => 'Jaideep'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J. 1',
		(int) 1 => 'six months',
		(int) 2 => 'three months',
		(int) 3 => 'March 5, 1998',
		(int) 4 => '1998',
		(int) 5 => '1998',
		(int) 6 => 'March 5, 1998',
		(int) 7 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 8 => 'that day',
		(int) 9 => 'the previous winter',
		(int) 10 => 'September 22, 1992',
		(int) 11 => 'about one week',
		(int) 12 => 'the same day',
		(int) 13 => 'about one week',
		(int) 14 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 15 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 16 => 'the same day',
		(int) 17 => 'the same day',
		(int) 18 => 'September 19, 1992',
		(int) 19 => 'September 29, 1992',
		(int) 20 => 'September 19, 1992',
		(int) 21 => '1992',
		(int) 22 => 'February 3, 1992',
		(int) 23 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 24 => 'the day',
		(int) 25 => 'that day',
		(int) 26 => 'about two years',
		(int) 27 => 'the day',
		(int) 28 => 'the day',
		(int) 29 => 'the day',
		(int) 30 => 'October 6, 1992',
		(int) 31 => 'September 22, 1992',
		(int) 32 => 'September 24, 1992',
		(int) 33 => 'the first three years',
		(int) 34 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 35 => 'September 18, 1992 Dr.',
		(int) 36 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 37 => 'that day',
		(int) 38 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 39 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 40 => 'last year',
		(int) 41 => 'about fifteen days',
		(int) 42 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 43 => '3-4 days',
		(int) 44 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 45 => 'the same day',
		(int) 46 => 'the next day',
		(int) 47 => 'September 19, 1992'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 1 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 2 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 5 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 6 => 'Rajesh'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S. 34',
		(int) 1 => 'S. 34',
		(int) 2 => 'IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'the Additional Sessions',
		(int) 4 => 'Crl',
		(int) 5 => 'Crl',
		(int) 6 => 'SI Siri Chand',
		(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 8 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 9 => 'College',
		(int) 10 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 11 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 12 => 'the Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 13 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 14 => 'Hari Ram',
		(int) 15 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 16 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 17 => 'Jaideep and Dharmavir',
		(int) 18 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 19 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 20 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 21 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 22 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 24 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 25 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
		(int) 26 => 'the Civil Hospital',
		(int) 27 => 'the Civil Hospital',
		(int) 28 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
		(int) 29 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 30 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 31 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 32 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 33 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 36 => 'Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital',
		(int) 37 => 'Medical Officer',
		(int) 38 => 'General Hospital',
		(int) 39 => 'Jaibir',
		(int) 40 => 'the Incharge, Police Post',
		(int) 41 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 42 => 'the Incharge Police Post',
		(int) 43 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 44 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 45 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 46 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 47 => 'the Court of CJM',
		(int) 48 => 'State',
		(int) 49 => 'the Court of CJM',
		(int) 50 => 'CJM',
		(int) 51 => 'Arts Block of the College',
		(int) 52 => 'Arts Block',
		(int) 53 => 'Gohana Sonepat',
		(int) 54 => 'Anand Cinema',
		(int) 55 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 56 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 57 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 58 => 'Chowk',
		(int) 59 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 60 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 61 => 'Shisham',
		(int) 62 => 'Old Civil Hospital',
		(int) 63 => 'Court',
		(int) 64 => 'Greh-Parvesh'',
		(int) 65 => 'Greh Parvesh',
		(int) 66 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 67 => 'House',
		(int) 68 => 'IPC',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'PW 6 Jot Ram',
		(int) 71 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 72 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 73 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 74 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 75 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 76 => 'CRZ School',
		(int) 77 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 78 => 'Atlas Factory',
		(int) 79 => 'CRZ School',
		(int) 80 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 81 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 82 => 'Shisham',
		(int) 83 => 'P.C. P.W.',
		(int) 84 => 'Dharamvir',
		(int) 85 => 'PZ',
		(int) 86 => 'the Vigilance Branch',
		(int) 87 => 'Rajiv, Anand',
		(int) 88 => 'Court',
		(int) 89 => 'DW',
		(int) 90 => 'the House Tax Assessment Register',
		(int) 91 => 'DSP',
		(int) 92 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 93 => 'PP',
		(int) 94 => 'General Hospital',
		(int) 95 => 'D.S.P. City Ballabgarh',
		(int) 96 => 'the Inspector General of Police',
		(int) 97 => 'IPC',
		(int) 98 => 'DW',
		(int) 99 => 'Smt',
		(int) 100 => 'the Crime Branch',
		(int) 101 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 102 => 'Bar',
		(int) 103 => 'the house of one',
		(int) 104 => 'Sham',
		(int) 105 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 106 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 107 => 'D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya',
		(int) 108 => 'Thakur',
		(int) 109 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 110 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 111 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 112 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 113 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 114 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 115 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 116 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 119 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 120 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 121 => 'Court',
		(int) 122 => 'Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.I.',
		(int) 1 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 2 => 'Anand',
		(int) 3 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 4 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 5 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 6 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 7 => 'Anand',
		(int) 8 => 'Mukhtiara',
		(int) 9 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 10 => 'Katha',
		(int) 11 => 'Anand',
		(int) 12 => 'Anand',
		(int) 13 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 14 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 15 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 16 => 'Anand',
		(int) 17 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 18 => 'PW',
		(int) 19 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 20 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 21 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 22 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 23 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 24 => 'P.S.',
		(int) 25 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 26 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 27 => 'Singh',
		(int) 28 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 29 => 'PW',
		(int) 30 => 'sonepat',
		(int) 31 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 32 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 33 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 34 => 'Village Rathdana',
		(int) 35 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 36 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 37 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 38 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 39 => 'Anand',
		(int) 40 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 41 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 42 => 'Cr',
		(int) 43 => 'Siri Chand',
		(int) 44 => 'Cr',
		(int) 45 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 46 => 'Gopal Chand',
		(int) 47 => 'D.G.P.',
		(int) 48 => 'Anand',
		(int) 49 => 'Cr',
		(int) 50 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 51 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 52 => 'Bablu',
		(int) 53 => 'Anand',
		(int) 54 => 'Cr',
		(int) 55 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 56 => 'Anand',
		(int) 57 => 'Anand',
		(int) 58 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 59 => 'Dehradoon',
		(int) 60 => 'Anand',
		(int) 61 => 'Malik',
		(int) 62 => 'Bandri',
		(int) 63 => 'Model Town',
		(int) 64 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 65 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 66 => 'Kala',
		(int) 67 => 'Pardhan',
		(int) 68 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 69 => 'PW',
		(int) 70 => 'PW',
		(int) 71 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 72 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 73 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 74 => 'PW',
		(int) 75 => 'PW',
		(int) 76 => 'PW',
		(int) 77 => 'PW',
		(int) 78 => 'Anand',
		(int) 79 => 'PW',
		(int) 80 => 'PW',
		(int) 81 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 82 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 83 => 'Rathdana',
		(int) 84 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 85 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 86 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 87 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 88 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 89 => 'PW',
		(int) 90 => 'Anand',
		(int) 91 => 'Anand',
		(int) 92 => 'Sonepat'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 3 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 4 => 'Hindu',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 6 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 7 => 'Jaivir'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '442',
		(int) 1 => '140',
		(int) 2 => '2. Before',
		(int) 3 => '3.',
		(int) 4 => '6',
		(int) 5 => '4.40',
		(int) 6 => '19',
		(int) 7 => '4',
		(int) 8 => '5.',
		(int) 9 => 'up to',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '3',
		(int) 12 => '3.00',
		(int) 13 => '4',
		(int) 14 => '5',
		(int) 15 => '6',
		(int) 16 => '6',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '3',
		(int) 19 => '167',
		(int) 20 => '3',
		(int) 21 => '6',
		(int) 22 => 'about 150',
		(int) 23 => 'one',
		(int) 24 => 'about 7-8',
		(int) 25 => '10-12',
		(int) 26 => 'about 15-16',
		(int) 27 => 'about half',
		(int) 28 => 'about 4000-4250',
		(int) 29 => '312/19',
		(int) 30 => '19',
		(int) 31 => 'two',
		(int) 32 => '19',
		(int) 33 => 'One',
		(int) 34 => '10+2',
		(int) 35 => 'about 12',
		(int) 36 => '9',
		(int) 37 => '11',
		(int) 38 => '8',
		(int) 39 => '1.',
		(int) 40 => '312',
		(int) 41 => '390',
		(int) 42 => '391',
		(int) 43 => '967',
		(int) 44 => 'four',
		(int) 45 => '10',
		(int) 46 => '3',
		(int) 47 => '4',
		(int) 48 => '5',
		(int) 49 => 'a couple of hundred',
		(int) 50 => 'one',
		(int) 51 => 'one',
		(int) 52 => '6',
		(int) 53 => 'one',
		(int) 54 => 'more than',
		(int) 55 => 'about one and half months',
		(int) 56 => 'one',
		(int) 57 => 'one',
		(int) 58 => '8',
		(int) 59 => 'one',
		(int) 60 => 'about 4-30 p.m.',
		(int) 61 => 'two/two and half months',
		(int) 62 => '9',
		(int) 63 => '6',
		(int) 64 => '6',
		(int) 65 => '6',
		(int) 66 => '6',
		(int) 67 => '10',
		(int) 68 => '6',
		(int) 69 => 'one',
		(int) 70 => '11',
		(int) 71 => '12',
		(int) 72 => '13'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6-15 p.m.',
		(int) 1 => 'about 1.45 p.m.',
		(int) 2 => '2-15 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => '10 a.m.',
		(int) 4 => 'within few minutes',
		(int) 5 => '24 hours',
		(int) 6 => 'Lunch hours',
		(int) 7 => '1 to 2 p.m.',
		(int) 8 => '1 p.m.',
		(int) 9 => 'about 1-15 p.m.',
		(int) 10 => 'about 20 minutes',
		(int) 11 => '2-3 minutes',
		(int) 12 => 'about 3 p.m.',
		(int) 13 => 'about 3.45/4 p.m.',
		(int) 14 => '8 am to 1 p.m.',
		(int) 15 => 'about five minutes',
		(int) 16 => '2-3 minutes',
		(int) 17 => '18-9-1992',
		(int) 18 => '8 a.m. to 2 p.m.',
		(int) 19 => '2 p.m. to',
		(int) 20 => '8 a.m.',
		(int) 21 => '10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.',
		(int) 22 => 'about 12 noon',
		(int) 23 => '3 p.m.',
		(int) 24 => '20 hours',
		(int) 25 => 'about 1 p.m.',
		(int) 26 => 'about 45 minutes',
		(int) 27 => '1-45 p.m.',
		(int) 28 => '4-40 p.m.',
		(int) 29 => 'five minutes',
		(int) 30 => 'about three hours',
		(int) 31 => 'about three hours'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'fifth',
		(int) 2 => 'first',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 1 => '3.0 cm',
		(int) 2 => '8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary',
		(int) 3 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 4 => '8 cm',
		(int) 5 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '2.5 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 7 => '3.5 cm x 2.0 cm',
		(int) 8 => '5 cm',
		(int) 9 => '12 cm',
		(int) 10 => '1 cm x 0.5 cm',
		(int) 11 => '2 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 12 => '2.0 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 13 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
		(int) 14 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
		(int) 15 => 'about 150 meters',
		(int) 16 => 'about one kilometre',
		(int) 17 => 'about five kilometres',
		(int) 18 => 'around one kilometer',
		(int) 19 => 'about one kilometer',
		(int) 20 => 'about half kilometer',
		(int) 21 => 'five kilometres',
		(int) 22 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 23 => '3.0 cm'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Municipal'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mastan',
		(int) 1 => 'Mastan',
		(int) 2 => 'the Atlas Cycle's',
		(int) 3 => 'the Rest House'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '613315',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 324',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'Sukhbir and Others',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State v. Rajesh Kumar and;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate and; T.P.S. Mann, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' N.K. Sanghi, Dy. Advocate General (Hy),; Ss. Namla, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B. Rai and; V.K. Bali, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Bali, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whereas, Sukhbir, Dharambir and Rajesh alias Pappu, real brothers, who have since been held guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, for having intentionally committed the murder of Jaideep as also under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months for having caused injuries to Jaivir, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated March 5, 1998, through present appeal filed by them seek setting aside of the said order, Jot Ram, complainant, who has preferred Crl. Revision No. 442 of 1998 and which revision has been ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998 seeks more deterrent punishment to the appellants as also compensation on account of death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Before, however, the rival contentions for and against the order of conviction and sentence dated March 5, 1998, as canvassed by learned counsel for the parties are noticed it shall be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants and the present appeal. It requires to be mentioned here that the appellants herein were tried along with their co-accused Ranvir Singh and Anand, who have since been acquitted. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir came to be reported to the police by Jot Ram, P.W. 6. He made a statement before SI Siri Chand on September 18, 1992 at 4.40, on the basis of which special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Sonepat at 6-15 p.m. on the same date. While unfolding the events leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir, he stated that he was residing in village Rathdhana. He was working as an Assistant Librarian in Hindu College, Sonepat. As usual, that day he had gone to his house for taking lunch from the College and after taking his lunch, his son, namely, Ranbir Singh was going to leave him at the college on a cycle. When he reached Subhash Chowk at about 1.45 p.m. on the bicycle with his son, Sukhbir Singh, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir sons of Mukhtiara, Caste Jat, resident of Rathdhana, at present Model Town, Sonepat, with their common intention, rushed from behind the side of Katha quarters' to the Subhash Chowk. Immediately, on reaching there, they surrounded his son Jaivir and his nephew Jaideep son of Hari Ram, who, after college hours, were standing at Subhash Chowk and waiting for a bus or scooter. Ranbir took Jaideep into his grip from behind. Sukhbir and Rajesh were armed with swords. Anand and Dharambir were armed with knifes. Sukhbir thrust his sword from its sharp side in the chest of Jaideep and Dharmavir gave a knife blow in the chest of Jaideep, as a result of which Jaideep fell on the ground with his face downward. Then Rajesh inflicted injuries with sword on his back. When Jaivir tried to rescue Jaideep, then Anand gave a knife blow to him which hit on his right arm. Thereafter, Dharambir made the face of Jaideep onward and gave a knife blow on his abdomen and gave second knife blow on his left thigh. He and his son Ranbir raised an alarm of 'Bachao-Bachao'. On hearing their noise, Sukhbir, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. He and his son Ranbir chased to catch them but they ran away through the streets. When he came back to the spot, Jaivir and Jaideep were not found at the spot and on enquiry be came to know that some people had taken them to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Then, he and his son Ranbir went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat to enquire about Jaivir and Jaideep and he came to know that Jaideep had succumbed to his injuries whereas Jaivir was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that the cause of dispute was that Pardeep, elder brother of Jaideep had contested Municipal election from Ward No. 19, Sonepat against Sukhbir, who had asked Pardeep many times not to contest the election but Pardeep did not withdraw his name from the election. Due to this grudge, Sukhbir and his brothers had caused injuries to Jaivir in the previous winter and the said case was pending in the Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and their co-accused, Ranbir and Anand, who, as mentioned above, has since been acquitted, prosecution examined Dr. D. D. Sharma, Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital, Sonepat as PW. 4. He stated that on September 22, 1992 while posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, he medico legally examined Sukhbir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. There was a scab formation with almost complete healing of the wound on the back of the left shoulder. No redness around the wound was present.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The injury was simple in nature and was caused within a duration of about one week by a blunt weapon. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Dharambir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found that there was a healed wound with scab formation on the front of his left leg. There was no tenderness or redness present around the wound. The nature of injury was simple and it was caused by a blunt weapon within a duration of about one week. He further stated that on September 18, 1992 the police had moved an application, Ex. PL vide which opinion was sought if Jaivir was fit to make a statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PL/1, declared that Jaivir was not fit to make a statement due to sedation. In his cross-examination, he stated that possibility of the said injuries by police canes could not be ruled out. P.W. 5 Dr. Subhash Mathur stated that on September 18, 1992 at 2-15 p.m. he medically examined Jaibir son of Jot Ram and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After X-ray, probable duration of injury was found to be fresh and it was caused by sharp weapon. On the same day he sent ruqa Ex. PN to the Incharge, Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat and the police moved an application, Ex. PN/1 seeking his opinion about the fitness of Jaivir for making statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PN/2 declared that Jaivir was not fit to make statement. He also sent ruqa Ex. PN/3 to the Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat on the same day. On September 19, 1992 the police made an application, Ex. PU to the same effect and vide his opinion, Ex. PO/1 he opined that Jaivir was fit to make a statement. On September 29, 1992, police made an other application, Ex. PQ, on which he had given his opinion, Ex. PQ/1. PW. 8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, stated that on September 19, 1992 at 10 a.m. he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jaideep and foundfollowing injuries :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm with regular margin on the chest wall right side on the fifth inter-coastal space obliquely placed, probe could pass up to 8 cm in downward and backward. On further exploration, there was clean rent of pleura of size 3 cm x 2 cm Right lung showed a rent of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on upper lobe. Right pleural cavity was full of blood. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on the ebigastrium left side 5 cm lateral to midline below the costal margin. Probing, of the wound was done. The probe could pass upto 12 cm in downward and medial direction. On further exploration, there was about one liter of blood in peritoneal cavity. There was tear of menentery of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm injuring the blood vessels. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Stab wound of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the abdominal wall right lateral side lumbar region. The probe could pass upto 3.00 c.m. On further exploration, the wound was communicating with paritonial cavity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm on the left lateral wall of abdomen over the lumbar region. The wound was muscle deep. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Abrasion of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the left knee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of left thigh. The wound was muscle deep.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, right lung and injury to mesentery vessels. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. In his cross-examination he stated that the weapons were not shown to him by the police previous thereto nor hadthey sought his opinion and all the stab wounds were possible by any of the swords and the knife. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. PW. 1 Anil Kumar draftsman proved having prepared site plan, Ex. PA on the demarcation of Jot Ram, Jaivir and Ranbir. PW. 3 Rakesh Kumar, Ahlmad, attached to the Court of CJM, Sonepat, only stated that he had brought the summoned record of case No. 134/1 of 1992 titled as State v. Rajesh Kumar and others, P.S. City Sonepat which was pending in the Court of CJM, Sonepat. He also stated that he had seen FIR No. 167 dated February 3, 1992 which was part of judicial record and a copy of the same was Ex. PB. In his cross-examination, he stated that the case pending before the CJM was against Rajesh, Dharambir and Sat Narain sons of Mukhtiar Singh, residents of Rathdhana. PW. 3 Sunil Arora only deposed about having taken photographs Ex. PA to P4 from different angles of the spot. Jot Ram, the first informant, who was examined as PW. 6 deposed in tune with the statement made by him before the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that on September 18, 1992 he was on duty in the College Library which is situated in Arts Block of the College and that Arts Block is about 150 paces from the railway crossing one Gohana Sonepat road. Besides him, there were about 7-8 officials in the library. Lunch hours were from 1 to 2 p.m. He denied the suggestion that there were instructions of Principal of the college not to leave the college during lunch hours. On the day of occurrence, he did not attend the Library after lunch and an intimation to that effect was sent. An application for leave was given but he had not kept a copy thereof. On that day, he left the college for his meals at 1 p.m. on his own cycle and he reached at his residence which is in New Pancham Nagar at about 1-15 p.m. His house was at a distance of about 150 meters from Anand Cinema, sonepat and the distance between his house and Hindu College was about one kilometre. His wife, his son Ranbir singh and other family members were in the house. He further stated that he stayed at his residence for about 20 minutes and he followed the same route while going back to the college with his son Ranbir Singh. The appellants and their co-accused crossed them at Subhash Chowk from a distance of 10-12 paces. Subhash Chowk was a busy market. After the accused passed through, they followed their way to the college. At that time, they did not suspect the accused but when they encircled Jaideep, they were at a distance of about 15-16 paces. When they were near Subhash Chowk, they found the accused encircling Jaideep and his son Jaivir near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. The accused ran away through Municipal street which passes from the back of Old Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Police Post Model Town, was at a distance of about half furlong from the place of occurrence. They went to hospital on a cycle at about 3 p.m. To a Court question as to at what time the police recorded his statement in the hospital, he replied that the police recorded his statement at about 3.45/4 p.m. He denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that non ceremony regarding 'Greh-Parvesh' was separately performed nor any invitation card was printed or issued to any one. However, cards were printed at the time of marriage of his son Mastan and the said cards were only with regard to the marriage of his son. He denied the suggestion that Greh Parvesh ceremony was also performed at the time of the marriage of his son which took place about two years after the occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that his house was not in existence on the day of occurrence. On the day of occurrence, his son Mastan was Sarpanch of village Rathdhana which is at a distance of about five kilometres from Sonepat, Village Rathdana had a population of about 4000-4250 voters. All the votes of his family members at that time were prepared in village Rathdhana. He, however, again said that his son Jaivir had a vote at Sonepat in House No. 312/19. On the day of occurrence the electricity and water supply connections in respect of the said house were in his name. His nephew Jaideep and Ashok were residing in Ward No. 19, Sonepat in separate houses. They had two houses in ward No. 19 besides his own house. One house was owned by his younger brother Shiv Charan. He admitted that with regard to the same occurrence, some other persons were also challaned under S. 302, IPC and that the case was pending in the Court. He, however, denied the suggestion that they named the accused only on suspicion. PW. 7 Jaivir supported the version given by PW 6 Jot Ram in its all material details. Besides stating that accused Ranbir caught hold of Jaideep from behind and that appellant Sukhbir gave sword blow in the chest of Jaideep, he also stated that appellant Dharambir stabbed with knife in the chest of Jaideep. Thereafter, appellant Rajesh inflicted a sword blow on the back of Jaideep. When he tried to save Jaideep, accused Anand inflicted a knife blow on his right arm. Thereafter appellant Dharambir inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen and left thigh. The occurrence was witnessed by his father and brother Ranbir. In his cross-examination, he stated that at that time he was a student of 10+2 in CRZ School, Sonepat and his school timings were from 8 am to 1 p.m. Jat School must be around one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that buses and tempo did not go to their village from Subhash Chowk but only from Atlas Factory, Sonepat. He rather stated that there was no regular bus stop at the Atlas Cycle's gate and on the other hand, Subhash Chowk had a regular bus stop which was near to CRZ School. Hindu College was also at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He collected Jaideep from Hindu College and then both of them came to Subhash Chowk for boarding a bus/tempo for going to their village. They came about five minutes before the occurrence on foot. They were standing at the time of occurrence near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. His father and brother had come to their rescue. He had seen his father and brother from a distance of about 12 paces. He denied the suggestion that neither the accused attacked nor caused injuries to them nor his father and brother witnessed the occurrence. PW. 9 Inspector Ram Kumar stated that on October 6, 1992 he had prepared and submitted the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. P.W. 11 Siri Chand, Inspector deposed about the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. He also stated that on September 22, 1992 he had arrested the accused and had moved an application, Ex. PJ/1 for the medical examination of accused Sukhbir and Dharamvir. On September 24, 1992 he interrogated the accused and they made disclosure statements, Ex. PY, PY/1, PY/2 and PY/3 and pursuant thereto accused Rajesh got recovered all the weapons vide recovery memo Ex. PZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., appellant Sukhbir Singh stated that he was innocent and investigation of this case was also conducted by the Vigilance Branch and in that he was found innocent whereas Rajiv, Anand, Tilak Raj and Babu were challaned by the police and they were facing trial in the Court. Statements made by other appellants are also similar to the one made by Sukhbir Singh appellant. In their evidence, appellants examined Gopal Chand, Clerk as DW. 1. He stated that he had seen the certified copies of the House Tax Assessment Register regarding Houses bearing Nos. 312, 390 and 391. These were correct as per the house tax assessment register. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the record of the house of Jot Ram and that a newly constructed house, according to the sanctioned site plan, is exempt from house tax for the first three years, DW 2 Daya Chand, a retired police Inspector, stated that on September 18, 1992 he was posted as an Inspector, Crime Branch, Madhuban. On receipt of a wireless message of D.G.P., Haryana, he along with DSP Narinder Singh reinvestigated the case FIR No. 967 of 18-9-1992. During the course of investigation, they arrested four persons, namely, Rajiv, Badlu, Anand and Tilak Raj. On interrogation, they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got recovered nothing. He proved copies of disclosure statements, Ex. D3 to D6. His statement regarding these documents was objected to by the Public Prosecutor, being inadmissible in evidence. The witness further stated that the accused had got identified the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. D7 to D. 10. These documents were once again objected to by the PP being inadmissible in evidence. The witness also stated that he had recorded the statements of various persons under S. 161, Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know if Chattar Singh, Ramesh and Shamsher Singh, the alleged eye-witnesses, were examined in that case or not. DW. 3 Siri Bhagwan, Senior Pharmacist, General Hospital, Sonepat stated that he had brought the duty register of the doctor. On September 18, 1992 Dr. Subodh Kumar Sehrawat remained on emergency duty in the hospital from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. DW. 4 Narinder Singh Ahlawat, D.S.P. City Ballabgarh stated that this case was reinvestigated by Inspector Daya Chand under his supervision under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Haryana and during investigation the present accused were found innocent and therefore the report was made accordingly. However, Rajiv, Bablu, Anand and Tilak Raj were found having committed the murder of Jaideep. Challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was accordingly filed against the said persons, namely, Rajiv and others. In his cross-examination, he stated that he personally did not interrogate or join in investigation Jot Ram and Jaivir during re-investigation. He also did not recommend any action against them under S. 182, IPC. DW. 5 Manish Malik stated that on September 18, 1992 he was at his house as his grand mother had died and the ceremony was to be held on that day. She was known as Smt. Bhagwanti wife of Shri Shobh Raj Malik. Accused Anand was present at his residence from 10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on that day helping him in serving the guests presenting the occasion. After learning about the implication of Anand in this case, he visited the police station and narrated this incident to the investigating officer. He had also made this statement before the personnel of the Crime Branch who had questioned him in the Rest House. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was situated about half kilometer away from Subhash Chowk, Sonepat. Approximately, a couple of hundred people had attended the ceremony. Shri Mohinder Singh Malik, an Advocate the member of the Bar, was the real brother of his father. Shri Devi Dass, Ex, MLA was his maternal grandfather, Many other respectables of their town were present at the time of the ceremony there was one house intervening between his house and the house of Chaudhary Rizak Ram, Ex.-MLA. Anand and he were students of one school at Dehradoon. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a personal friend and class-mate of Anand. DW. 6 Jai Singh stated that on September 18, 1992 he was present at the house of one Sham at about 12 noon or so, along with appellant Dharambir Singh, one Malik, Sohan Lal and Bandri. They were playing cards and they disbursed after 3 p.m. The mother of Dharambir had called him from amongst them and had taken him away. He had brought all these facts to the notice of the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the house of Dharambir was located in Model Town, Sonepat. He was his neighbour. His house was located more than one kilometer away from Subhash Chowk. He did not know the location of the house of Malik Sobh Raj. The approximate distance between the house of Ch. Rizaq Ram and that of appellant Dharambir was 20 hours (sic). He had narrated all these facts to the police after about one and half months of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as a witness in this case by the defence or that his statement was false to his very knowledge, D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya stated that on September 18, 1992 at about 1 p.m. appellant Sukhbir had come to him at the tea stall of a person, namely, Thakur located opposite Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex, Sonepat, one Ch. Suraj Bhan of Ganaur and one Rambir of village Dabarpur and a couple of more persons were present there at that time. After about 45 minutes or so, they heard commotion and rushed out of the tea stall and learnt that some incident had taken place at Subhash Chowk. He had narrated this incident to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the date on which he had made statement before the police. He also did not remember the dates of Hindu festivals which had fallen last year. He was summoned by the police after about fifteen days of the occurrence at Subhash Chowk. He denied the suggestion that no such incident as narrated by him had taken place or that he was deposing falsely. DW. 8 Prem stated that he was running a business of buffalo trading in partnership with Ranbir accused. On September 18, 1992 he along with Ranbir had gone to village Khewara where they met one Kala and took him along with them to village Asawarpur. They had gone to village Aswarpur in order to make payment to Pardhan of the said village. They came back to Sonepat at about 4-30 p.m. He was examined by the police 3-4 days after the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had no documentary proof with regard to his visit along with accused Ranbir to village Khewara and Aswarpur nor he could produce any written proof with regard to his visits with Ranbir accused on certain other occasions. He could not name the police official who examined him and recorded his statement after two/two and half months after the occurrence. Apart from this statement that he made, he did not make any effort to approach the authorities with regard to the false implication of Ranbir in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being friend of Ranbir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri T. P.S. Mann, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. From the facts as have been detailed above, it would transpire that the prosecution case is based upon the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 Jot Ram, who happens to be the first informant and jaivir, PW. 7. Jaivir, as per the prosecution version, was injured in the occurrence leading to death of Jaideep. The occurrence leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir had taken place at 1-45 p.m. on September 18, 1992 at Sonepat. Jot Ram PW. 6 lodged the first information report at 4-40 p.m. on the same day and within five minutes, the special report reached the Magistrate at Sonepat. The occurrence, in our view, came to be reported with a short span of about three hours and the special report was handed over to the concerned Magistrate very promptly. It is in this background that the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 and PW. 7 has to be appreciated. Learned counsel for the appellants has been at pains to explain to us that PW. 6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. Insofar as PW. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants but find no substance therein whatsoever. As mentioned above, the incident came to be reported to the police within about three hours from when the occurrence took place. It has come in the evidence that whereas Jaideep had succumbed to the injuries received by him at the hands of the appellants. PW. 7 Jaivir was not fit to make a statement when rushed to the hospital. If perhaps PW. 6 had not seen the occurrence, he could not have given the details thereof leading to death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir and that too within a short duration from when the occurrence had taken place. This fact, in itself establishes the presence of PW. 6 at the scene of occurrence. Much has been said about this witness having no house in the town where he is said to have gone to take his meals during interval from the place of his work. It has also been stated that this witness had a house in the village and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to have gone to his house in Sonepat where perhaps he had no house at all. We find no substance in this criticism made to the statement of P.W. 6. If no ceremony regarding 'Grah Parvesh' had separately been performed, nor any invitation cards were printed for the said occasion, it would not suggest that this witness did not have a house at Sonepat. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. Further, he had not only given the number of his house but further stated that his son Jaivir had a vote on the address of this house on the date of occurrence and that electric and water connections of the said house were in his name. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness in going to his house at Sonepat for meals. Insofar as statement of PW. 7 Jaivir is concerned, no dent at all could be made in the same except for what has been noted above. The fact that Anand has been acquitted, and that the witness stated that the received injuries at the hands of Anand. In our view, would not be enough to disbelieve the presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence. As mentioned above, he is an injured witness. He had an incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. It may be recalled that this witness was also admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. The opinion of the doctor is that the probable duration of injury was fresh. Further, when police made application, Ex. PN/1, seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Jaivir, vide Ex. PN/2 it was declared that he was not fit to make a statement. It is only on the next day, i.e., September 19, 1992 that the doctor had opined that he was fit to make a statement. It is, therefore, amply proved that this witness was injured at the same time when Jaideep was attacked by the appellants resulting into his death. The mere fact that the witness named somebody else having caused some injuries whereas the same might have been caused by one of the appellants herein, would not be enough to discard his testimony or to hold that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Even though the appellants led evidence in defence, gist whereof has been reproduced above, nothing based upon the said evidence, has been argued before this Court. We, however, hasten to add that the appellants believed in quantity of evidence and not quality thereof. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. From the facts and circumstances, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants have committed the crime, of which they were charged, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. That being so, no occasion at all arises to set aside the order recorded Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same also to stand dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Revision dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1999CriLJ2083',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '613315'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'V.K. Bali',
			(int) 1 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 2 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 3 => 'RI',
			(int) 4 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 6 => 'Ranvir Singh',
			(int) 7 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 8 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 9 => 'Librarian',
			(int) 10 => 'Ranbir Singh',
			(int) 11 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 12 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 13 => 'Caste Jat',
			(int) 14 => 'Model Town',
			(int) 15 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 16 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 17 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 18 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 19 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 20 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 21 => 'Bachao-Bachao'',
			(int) 22 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 24 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 25 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 26 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 27 => 'D. D. Sharma',
			(int) 28 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 29 => 'Singh',
			(int) 30 => 'Dharambir Singh',
			(int) 31 => 'Singh',
			(int) 32 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 33 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 34 => 'Subhash Mathur',
			(int) 35 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 36 => 'PN/2',
			(int) 37 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 38 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 39 => 'I. Stab',
			(int) 40 => 'Anil Kumar',
			(int) 41 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 42 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 43 => 'Ahlmad',
			(int) 44 => 'Rajesh Kumar',
			(int) 45 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 46 => 'Sat Narain',
			(int) 47 => 'Sunil Arora',
			(int) 48 => 'Ex',
			(int) 49 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 50 => 'Principal',
			(int) 51 => 'Library',
			(int) 52 => 'Ranbir Singh',
			(int) 53 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 54 => 'Sarpanch',
			(int) 55 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 56 => 'Shiv Charan',
			(int) 57 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 58 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 59 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 60 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 61 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 62 => 'Ram Kumar',
			(int) 63 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 64 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 65 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 66 => 'Babu',
			(int) 67 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
			(int) 68 => 'Clerk',
			(int) 69 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 70 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 71 => 'Singh',
			(int) 72 => 'Rajiv, Badlu,',
			(int) 73 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 74 => 'memos Ex',
			(int) 75 => 'Chattar Singh',
			(int) 76 => 'Shamsher Singh',
			(int) 77 => 'Siri Bhagwan',
			(int) 78 => 'Kumar Sehrawat',
			(int) 79 => 'DW',
			(int) 80 => 'Singh Ahlawat',
			(int) 81 => 'Daya Chand',
			(int) 82 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 83 => 'Rajiv',
			(int) 84 => 'Tilak Raj',
			(int) 85 => 'Challan under',
			(int) 86 => 'Rajiv',
			(int) 87 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 88 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 89 => 'Manish Malik',
			(int) 90 => 'Shri Mohinder Singh Malik',
			(int) 91 => 'Shri Devi Dass',
			(int) 92 => 'MLA',
			(int) 93 => 'Jai Singh',
			(int) 94 => 'Dharambir Singh',
			(int) 95 => 'Sohan Lal',
			(int) 96 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 97 => 'Malik Sobh Raj',
			(int) 98 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 99 => 'Sukhbir',
			(int) 100 => 'Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex',
			(int) 101 => 'Suraj Bhan',
			(int) 102 => 'Dabarpur',
			(int) 103 => 'Prem',
			(int) 104 => 'Khewara',
			(int) 105 => 'Asawarpur',
			(int) 106 => 'Aswarpur',
			(int) 107 => 'Khewara',
			(int) 108 => 'Aswarpur',
			(int) 109 => 'P.S. Mann',
			(int) 110 => 'Shri T. P.S. Mann',
			(int) 111 => 'N. K. Sanghi',
			(int) 112 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 113 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 114 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 115 => 'Jot Ram PW',
			(int) 116 => 'Jot Ram',
			(int) 117 => 'Jaivir Singh',
			(int) 118 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 119 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 120 => 'Grah Parvesh'',
			(int) 121 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 122 => 'Ex',
			(int) 123 => 'Jaideep'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J. 1',
			(int) 1 => 'six months',
			(int) 2 => 'three months',
			(int) 3 => 'March 5, 1998',
			(int) 4 => '1998',
			(int) 5 => '1998',
			(int) 6 => 'March 5, 1998',
			(int) 7 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 8 => 'that day',
			(int) 9 => 'the previous winter',
			(int) 10 => 'September 22, 1992',
			(int) 11 => 'about one week',
			(int) 12 => 'the same day',
			(int) 13 => 'about one week',
			(int) 14 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 15 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 16 => 'the same day',
			(int) 17 => 'the same day',
			(int) 18 => 'September 19, 1992',
			(int) 19 => 'September 29, 1992',
			(int) 20 => 'September 19, 1992',
			(int) 21 => '1992',
			(int) 22 => 'February 3, 1992',
			(int) 23 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 24 => 'the day',
			(int) 25 => 'that day',
			(int) 26 => 'about two years',
			(int) 27 => 'the day',
			(int) 28 => 'the day',
			(int) 29 => 'the day',
			(int) 30 => 'October 6, 1992',
			(int) 31 => 'September 22, 1992',
			(int) 32 => 'September 24, 1992',
			(int) 33 => 'the first three years',
			(int) 34 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 35 => 'September 18, 1992 Dr.',
			(int) 36 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 37 => 'that day',
			(int) 38 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 39 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 40 => 'last year',
			(int) 41 => 'about fifteen days',
			(int) 42 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 43 => '3-4 days',
			(int) 44 => 'September 18, 1992',
			(int) 45 => 'the same day',
			(int) 46 => 'the next day',
			(int) 47 => 'September 19, 1992'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 1 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 2 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 3 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 4 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 5 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 6 => 'Rajesh'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S. 34',
			(int) 1 => 'S. 34',
			(int) 2 => 'IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'the Additional Sessions',
			(int) 4 => 'Crl',
			(int) 5 => 'Crl',
			(int) 6 => 'SI Siri Chand',
			(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 8 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 9 => 'College',
			(int) 10 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 11 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 12 => 'the Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 13 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 14 => 'Hari Ram',
			(int) 15 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 16 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 17 => 'Jaideep and Dharmavir',
			(int) 18 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 19 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 20 => 'Rajesh',
			(int) 21 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 22 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 24 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 25 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
			(int) 26 => 'the Civil Hospital',
			(int) 27 => 'the Civil Hospital',
			(int) 28 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
			(int) 29 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 30 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 31 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 32 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 33 => 'Pardeep',
			(int) 34 => 'Court',
			(int) 35 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 36 => 'Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital',
			(int) 37 => 'Medical Officer',
			(int) 38 => 'General Hospital',
			(int) 39 => 'Jaibir',
			(int) 40 => 'the Incharge, Police Post',
			(int) 41 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 42 => 'the Incharge Police Post',
			(int) 43 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 44 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 45 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 46 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 47 => 'the Court of CJM',
			(int) 48 => 'State',
			(int) 49 => 'the Court of CJM',
			(int) 50 => 'CJM',
			(int) 51 => 'Arts Block of the College',
			(int) 52 => 'Arts Block',
			(int) 53 => 'Gohana Sonepat',
			(int) 54 => 'Anand Cinema',
			(int) 55 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 56 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 57 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 58 => 'Chowk',
			(int) 59 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 60 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 61 => 'Shisham',
			(int) 62 => 'Old Civil Hospital',
			(int) 63 => 'Court',
			(int) 64 => 'Greh-Parvesh'',
			(int) 65 => 'Greh Parvesh',
			(int) 66 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 67 => 'House',
			(int) 68 => 'IPC',
			(int) 69 => 'Court',
			(int) 70 => 'PW 6 Jot Ram',
			(int) 71 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 72 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 73 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 74 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 75 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 76 => 'CRZ School',
			(int) 77 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 78 => 'Atlas Factory',
			(int) 79 => 'CRZ School',
			(int) 80 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 81 => 'Hindu College',
			(int) 82 => 'Shisham',
			(int) 83 => 'P.C. P.W.',
			(int) 84 => 'Dharamvir',
			(int) 85 => 'PZ',
			(int) 86 => 'the Vigilance Branch',
			(int) 87 => 'Rajiv, Anand',
			(int) 88 => 'Court',
			(int) 89 => 'DW',
			(int) 90 => 'the House Tax Assessment Register',
			(int) 91 => 'DSP',
			(int) 92 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 93 => 'PP',
			(int) 94 => 'General Hospital',
			(int) 95 => 'D.S.P. City Ballabgarh',
			(int) 96 => 'the Inspector General of Police',
			(int) 97 => 'IPC',
			(int) 98 => 'DW',
			(int) 99 => 'Smt',
			(int) 100 => 'the Crime Branch',
			(int) 101 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 102 => 'Bar',
			(int) 103 => 'the house of one',
			(int) 104 => 'Sham',
			(int) 105 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 106 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 107 => 'D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya',
			(int) 108 => 'Thakur',
			(int) 109 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 110 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 111 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 112 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 113 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 114 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 115 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 116 => 'Ranbir',
			(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
			(int) 119 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 120 => 'P.W. 6',
			(int) 121 => 'Court',
			(int) 122 => 'Court'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'R.I.',
			(int) 1 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 2 => 'Anand',
			(int) 3 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 4 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 5 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 6 => 'Dharambir',
			(int) 7 => 'Anand',
			(int) 8 => 'Mukhtiara',
			(int) 9 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 10 => 'Katha',
			(int) 11 => 'Anand',
			(int) 12 => 'Anand',
			(int) 13 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 14 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 15 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 16 => 'Anand',
			(int) 17 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 18 => 'PW',
			(int) 19 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 20 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 21 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 22 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 23 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 24 => 'P.S.',
			(int) 25 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 26 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 27 => 'Singh',
			(int) 28 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 29 => 'PW',
			(int) 30 => 'sonepat',
			(int) 31 => 'Subhash Chowk',
			(int) 32 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 33 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 34 => 'Village Rathdana',
			(int) 35 => 'Rathdhana',
			(int) 36 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 37 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 38 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 39 => 'Anand',
			(int) 40 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 41 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 42 => 'Cr',
			(int) 43 => 'Siri Chand',
			(int) 44 => 'Cr',
			(int) 45 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 46 => 'Gopal Chand',
			(int) 47 => 'D.G.P.',
			(int) 48 => 'Anand',
			(int) 49 => 'Cr',
			(int) 50 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 51 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 52 => 'Bablu',
			(int) 53 => 'Anand',
			(int) 54 => 'Cr',
			(int) 55 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 56 => 'Anand',
			(int) 57 => 'Anand',
			(int) 58 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 59 => 'Dehradoon',
			(int) 60 => 'Anand',
			(int) 61 => 'Malik',
			(int) 62 => 'Bandri',
			(int) 63 => 'Model Town',
			(int) 64 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 65 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 66 => 'Kala',
			(int) 67 => 'Pardhan',
			(int) 68 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 69 => 'PW',
			(int) 70 => 'PW',
			(int) 71 => 'Jaideep',
			(int) 72 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 73 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 74 => 'PW',
			(int) 75 => 'PW',
			(int) 76 => 'PW',
			(int) 77 => 'PW',
			(int) 78 => 'Anand',
			(int) 79 => 'PW',
			(int) 80 => 'PW',
			(int) 81 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 82 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 83 => 'Rathdana',
			(int) 84 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 85 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 86 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 87 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 88 => 'Sonepat',
			(int) 89 => 'PW',
			(int) 90 => 'Anand',
			(int) 91 => 'Anand',
			(int) 92 => 'Sonepat'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 1 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 2 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 3 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 4 => 'Hindu',
			(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 6 => 'Jaivir',
			(int) 7 => 'Jaivir'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '442',
			(int) 1 => '140',
			(int) 2 => '2. Before',
			(int) 3 => '3.',
			(int) 4 => '6',
			(int) 5 => '4.40',
			(int) 6 => '19',
			(int) 7 => '4',
			(int) 8 => '5.',
			(int) 9 => 'up to',
			(int) 10 => '2',
			(int) 11 => '3',
			(int) 12 => '3.00',
			(int) 13 => '4',
			(int) 14 => '5',
			(int) 15 => '6',
			(int) 16 => '6',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '3',
			(int) 19 => '167',
			(int) 20 => '3',
			(int) 21 => '6',
			(int) 22 => 'about 150',
			(int) 23 => 'one',
			(int) 24 => 'about 7-8',
			(int) 25 => '10-12',
			(int) 26 => 'about 15-16',
			(int) 27 => 'about half',
			(int) 28 => 'about 4000-4250',
			(int) 29 => '312/19',
			(int) 30 => '19',
			(int) 31 => 'two',
			(int) 32 => '19',
			(int) 33 => 'One',
			(int) 34 => '10+2',
			(int) 35 => 'about 12',
			(int) 36 => '9',
			(int) 37 => '11',
			(int) 38 => '8',
			(int) 39 => '1.',
			(int) 40 => '312',
			(int) 41 => '390',
			(int) 42 => '391',
			(int) 43 => '967',
			(int) 44 => 'four',
			(int) 45 => '10',
			(int) 46 => '3',
			(int) 47 => '4',
			(int) 48 => '5',
			(int) 49 => 'a couple of hundred',
			(int) 50 => 'one',
			(int) 51 => 'one',
			(int) 52 => '6',
			(int) 53 => 'one',
			(int) 54 => 'more than',
			(int) 55 => 'about one and half months',
			(int) 56 => 'one',
			(int) 57 => 'one',
			(int) 58 => '8',
			(int) 59 => 'one',
			(int) 60 => 'about 4-30 p.m.',
			(int) 61 => 'two/two and half months',
			(int) 62 => '9',
			(int) 63 => '6',
			(int) 64 => '6',
			(int) 65 => '6',
			(int) 66 => '6',
			(int) 67 => '10',
			(int) 68 => '6',
			(int) 69 => 'one',
			(int) 70 => '11',
			(int) 71 => '12',
			(int) 72 => '13'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6-15 p.m.',
			(int) 1 => 'about 1.45 p.m.',
			(int) 2 => '2-15 p.m.',
			(int) 3 => '10 a.m.',
			(int) 4 => 'within few minutes',
			(int) 5 => '24 hours',
			(int) 6 => 'Lunch hours',
			(int) 7 => '1 to 2 p.m.',
			(int) 8 => '1 p.m.',
			(int) 9 => 'about 1-15 p.m.',
			(int) 10 => 'about 20 minutes',
			(int) 11 => '2-3 minutes',
			(int) 12 => 'about 3 p.m.',
			(int) 13 => 'about 3.45/4 p.m.',
			(int) 14 => '8 am to 1 p.m.',
			(int) 15 => 'about five minutes',
			(int) 16 => '2-3 minutes',
			(int) 17 => '18-9-1992',
			(int) 18 => '8 a.m. to 2 p.m.',
			(int) 19 => '2 p.m. to',
			(int) 20 => '8 a.m.',
			(int) 21 => '10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.',
			(int) 22 => 'about 12 noon',
			(int) 23 => '3 p.m.',
			(int) 24 => '20 hours',
			(int) 25 => 'about 1 p.m.',
			(int) 26 => 'about 45 minutes',
			(int) 27 => '1-45 p.m.',
			(int) 28 => '4-40 p.m.',
			(int) 29 => 'five minutes',
			(int) 30 => 'about three hours',
			(int) 31 => 'about three hours'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'second',
			(int) 1 => 'fifth',
			(int) 2 => 'first',
			(int) 3 => 'first',
			(int) 4 => 'first'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 1 => '3.0 cm',
			(int) 2 => '8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary',
			(int) 3 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 4 => '8 cm',
			(int) 5 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '2.5 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 7 => '3.5 cm x 2.0 cm',
			(int) 8 => '5 cm',
			(int) 9 => '12 cm',
			(int) 10 => '1 cm x 0.5 cm',
			(int) 11 => '2 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 12 => '2.0 cm x 1.5 cm',
			(int) 13 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
			(int) 14 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
			(int) 15 => 'about 150 meters',
			(int) 16 => 'about one kilometre',
			(int) 17 => 'about five kilometres',
			(int) 18 => 'around one kilometer',
			(int) 19 => 'about one kilometer',
			(int) 20 => 'about half kilometer',
			(int) 21 => 'five kilometres',
			(int) 22 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 23 => '3.0 cm'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Municipal'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mastan',
			(int) 1 => 'Mastan',
			(int) 2 => 'the Atlas Cycle's',
			(int) 3 => 'the Rest House'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '613315',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 324',
			'appealno' => 'Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998',
			'appellant' => 'Sukhbir and Others',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'State v. Rajesh Kumar and;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate and; T.P.S. Mann, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' N.K. Sanghi, Dy. Advocate General (Hy),; Ss. Namla, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-01-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B. Rai and; V.K. Bali, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Bali, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whereas, Sukhbir, Dharambir and Rajesh alias Pappu, real brothers, who have since been held guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, for having intentionally committed the murder of Jaideep as also under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months for having caused injuries to Jaivir, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated March 5, 1998, through present appeal filed by them seek setting aside of the said order, Jot Ram, complainant, who has preferred Crl. Revision No. 442 of 1998 and which revision has been ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998 seeks more deterrent punishment to the appellants as also compensation on account of death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Before, however, the rival contentions for and against the order of conviction and sentence dated March 5, 1998, as canvassed by learned counsel for the parties are noticed it shall be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants and the present appeal. It requires to be mentioned here that the appellants herein were tried along with their co-accused Ranvir Singh and Anand, who have since been acquitted. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir came to be reported to the police by Jot Ram, P.W. 6. He made a statement before SI Siri Chand on September 18, 1992 at 4.40, on the basis of which special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Sonepat at 6-15 p.m. on the same date. While unfolding the events leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir, he stated that he was residing in village Rathdhana. He was working as an Assistant Librarian in Hindu College, Sonepat. As usual, that day he had gone to his house for taking lunch from the College and after taking his lunch, his son, namely, Ranbir Singh was going to leave him at the college on a cycle. When he reached Subhash Chowk at about 1.45 p.m. on the bicycle with his son, Sukhbir Singh, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir sons of Mukhtiara, Caste Jat, resident of Rathdhana, at present Model Town, Sonepat, with their common intention, rushed from behind the side of Katha quarters' to the Subhash Chowk. Immediately, on reaching there, they surrounded his son Jaivir and his nephew Jaideep son of Hari Ram, who, after college hours, were standing at Subhash Chowk and waiting for a bus or scooter. Ranbir took Jaideep into his grip from behind. Sukhbir and Rajesh were armed with swords. Anand and Dharambir were armed with knifes. Sukhbir thrust his sword from its sharp side in the chest of Jaideep and Dharmavir gave a knife blow in the chest of Jaideep, as a result of which Jaideep fell on the ground with his face downward. Then Rajesh inflicted injuries with sword on his back. When Jaivir tried to rescue Jaideep, then Anand gave a knife blow to him which hit on his right arm. Thereafter, Dharambir made the face of Jaideep onward and gave a knife blow on his abdomen and gave second knife blow on his left thigh. He and his son Ranbir raised an alarm of 'Bachao-Bachao'. On hearing their noise, Sukhbir, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. He and his son Ranbir chased to catch them but they ran away through the streets. When he came back to the spot, Jaivir and Jaideep were not found at the spot and on enquiry be came to know that some people had taken them to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Then, he and his son Ranbir went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat to enquire about Jaivir and Jaideep and he came to know that Jaideep had succumbed to his injuries whereas Jaivir was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that the cause of dispute was that Pardeep, elder brother of Jaideep had contested Municipal election from Ward No. 19, Sonepat against Sukhbir, who had asked Pardeep many times not to contest the election but Pardeep did not withdraw his name from the election. Due to this grudge, Sukhbir and his brothers had caused injuries to Jaivir in the previous winter and the said case was pending in the Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and their co-accused, Ranbir and Anand, who, as mentioned above, has since been acquitted, prosecution examined Dr. D. D. Sharma, Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital, Sonepat as PW. 4. He stated that on September 22, 1992 while posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, he medico legally examined Sukhbir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. There was a scab formation with almost complete healing of the wound on the back of the left shoulder. No redness around the wound was present.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The injury was simple in nature and was caused within a duration of about one week by a blunt weapon. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Dharambir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found that there was a healed wound with scab formation on the front of his left leg. There was no tenderness or redness present around the wound. The nature of injury was simple and it was caused by a blunt weapon within a duration of about one week. He further stated that on September 18, 1992 the police had moved an application, Ex. PL vide which opinion was sought if Jaivir was fit to make a statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PL/1, declared that Jaivir was not fit to make a statement due to sedation. In his cross-examination, he stated that possibility of the said injuries by police canes could not be ruled out. P.W. 5 Dr. Subhash Mathur stated that on September 18, 1992 at 2-15 p.m. he medically examined Jaibir son of Jot Ram and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After X-ray, probable duration of injury was found to be fresh and it was caused by sharp weapon. On the same day he sent ruqa Ex. PN to the Incharge, Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat and the police moved an application, Ex. PN/1 seeking his opinion about the fitness of Jaivir for making statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PN/2 declared that Jaivir was not fit to make statement. He also sent ruqa Ex. PN/3 to the Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat on the same day. On September 19, 1992 the police made an application, Ex. PU to the same effect and vide his opinion, Ex. PO/1 he opined that Jaivir was fit to make a statement. On September 29, 1992, police made an other application, Ex. PQ, on which he had given his opinion, Ex. PQ/1. PW. 8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, stated that on September 19, 1992 at 10 a.m. he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jaideep and foundfollowing injuries :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm with regular margin on the chest wall right side on the fifth inter-coastal space obliquely placed, probe could pass up to 8 cm in downward and backward. On further exploration, there was clean rent of pleura of size 3 cm x 2 cm Right lung showed a rent of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on upper lobe. Right pleural cavity was full of blood. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on the ebigastrium left side 5 cm lateral to midline below the costal margin. Probing, of the wound was done. The probe could pass upto 12 cm in downward and medial direction. On further exploration, there was about one liter of blood in peritoneal cavity. There was tear of menentery of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm injuring the blood vessels. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Stab wound of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the abdominal wall right lateral side lumbar region. The probe could pass upto 3.00 c.m. On further exploration, the wound was communicating with paritonial cavity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm on the left lateral wall of abdomen over the lumbar region. The wound was muscle deep. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Abrasion of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the left knee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of left thigh. The wound was muscle deep.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, right lung and injury to mesentery vessels. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. In his cross-examination he stated that the weapons were not shown to him by the police previous thereto nor hadthey sought his opinion and all the stab wounds were possible by any of the swords and the knife. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. PW. 1 Anil Kumar draftsman proved having prepared site plan, Ex. PA on the demarcation of Jot Ram, Jaivir and Ranbir. PW. 3 Rakesh Kumar, Ahlmad, attached to the Court of CJM, Sonepat, only stated that he had brought the summoned record of case No. 134/1 of 1992 titled as State v. Rajesh Kumar and others, P.S. City Sonepat which was pending in the Court of CJM, Sonepat. He also stated that he had seen FIR No. 167 dated February 3, 1992 which was part of judicial record and a copy of the same was Ex. PB. In his cross-examination, he stated that the case pending before the CJM was against Rajesh, Dharambir and Sat Narain sons of Mukhtiar Singh, residents of Rathdhana. PW. 3 Sunil Arora only deposed about having taken photographs Ex. PA to P4 from different angles of the spot. Jot Ram, the first informant, who was examined as PW. 6 deposed in tune with the statement made by him before the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that on September 18, 1992 he was on duty in the College Library which is situated in Arts Block of the College and that Arts Block is about 150 paces from the railway crossing one Gohana Sonepat road. Besides him, there were about 7-8 officials in the library. Lunch hours were from 1 to 2 p.m. He denied the suggestion that there were instructions of Principal of the college not to leave the college during lunch hours. On the day of occurrence, he did not attend the Library after lunch and an intimation to that effect was sent. An application for leave was given but he had not kept a copy thereof. On that day, he left the college for his meals at 1 p.m. on his own cycle and he reached at his residence which is in New Pancham Nagar at about 1-15 p.m. His house was at a distance of about 150 meters from Anand Cinema, sonepat and the distance between his house and Hindu College was about one kilometre. His wife, his son Ranbir singh and other family members were in the house. He further stated that he stayed at his residence for about 20 minutes and he followed the same route while going back to the college with his son Ranbir Singh. The appellants and their co-accused crossed them at Subhash Chowk from a distance of 10-12 paces. Subhash Chowk was a busy market. After the accused passed through, they followed their way to the college. At that time, they did not suspect the accused but when they encircled Jaideep, they were at a distance of about 15-16 paces. When they were near Subhash Chowk, they found the accused encircling Jaideep and his son Jaivir near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. The accused ran away through Municipal street which passes from the back of Old Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Police Post Model Town, was at a distance of about half furlong from the place of occurrence. They went to hospital on a cycle at about 3 p.m. To a Court question as to at what time the police recorded his statement in the hospital, he replied that the police recorded his statement at about 3.45/4 p.m. He denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that non ceremony regarding 'Greh-Parvesh' was separately performed nor any invitation card was printed or issued to any one. However, cards were printed at the time of marriage of his son Mastan and the said cards were only with regard to the marriage of his son. He denied the suggestion that Greh Parvesh ceremony was also performed at the time of the marriage of his son which took place about two years after the occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that his house was not in existence on the day of occurrence. On the day of occurrence, his son Mastan was Sarpanch of village Rathdhana which is at a distance of about five kilometres from Sonepat, Village Rathdana had a population of about 4000-4250 voters. All the votes of his family members at that time were prepared in village Rathdhana. He, however, again said that his son Jaivir had a vote at Sonepat in House No. 312/19. On the day of occurrence the electricity and water supply connections in respect of the said house were in his name. His nephew Jaideep and Ashok were residing in Ward No. 19, Sonepat in separate houses. They had two houses in ward No. 19 besides his own house. One house was owned by his younger brother Shiv Charan. He admitted that with regard to the same occurrence, some other persons were also challaned under S. 302, IPC and that the case was pending in the Court. He, however, denied the suggestion that they named the accused only on suspicion. PW. 7 Jaivir supported the version given by PW 6 Jot Ram in its all material details. Besides stating that accused Ranbir caught hold of Jaideep from behind and that appellant Sukhbir gave sword blow in the chest of Jaideep, he also stated that appellant Dharambir stabbed with knife in the chest of Jaideep. Thereafter, appellant Rajesh inflicted a sword blow on the back of Jaideep. When he tried to save Jaideep, accused Anand inflicted a knife blow on his right arm. Thereafter appellant Dharambir inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen and left thigh. The occurrence was witnessed by his father and brother Ranbir. In his cross-examination, he stated that at that time he was a student of 10+2 in CRZ School, Sonepat and his school timings were from 8 am to 1 p.m. Jat School must be around one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that buses and tempo did not go to their village from Subhash Chowk but only from Atlas Factory, Sonepat. He rather stated that there was no regular bus stop at the Atlas Cycle's gate and on the other hand, Subhash Chowk had a regular bus stop which was near to CRZ School. Hindu College was also at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He collected Jaideep from Hindu College and then both of them came to Subhash Chowk for boarding a bus/tempo for going to their village. They came about five minutes before the occurrence on foot. They were standing at the time of occurrence near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. His father and brother had come to their rescue. He had seen his father and brother from a distance of about 12 paces. He denied the suggestion that neither the accused attacked nor caused injuries to them nor his father and brother witnessed the occurrence. PW. 9 Inspector Ram Kumar stated that on October 6, 1992 he had prepared and submitted the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. P.W. 11 Siri Chand, Inspector deposed about the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. He also stated that on September 22, 1992 he had arrested the accused and had moved an application, Ex. PJ/1 for the medical examination of accused Sukhbir and Dharamvir. On September 24, 1992 he interrogated the accused and they made disclosure statements, Ex. PY, PY/1, PY/2 and PY/3 and pursuant thereto accused Rajesh got recovered all the weapons vide recovery memo Ex. PZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., appellant Sukhbir Singh stated that he was innocent and investigation of this case was also conducted by the Vigilance Branch and in that he was found innocent whereas Rajiv, Anand, Tilak Raj and Babu were challaned by the police and they were facing trial in the Court. Statements made by other appellants are also similar to the one made by Sukhbir Singh appellant. In their evidence, appellants examined Gopal Chand, Clerk as DW. 1. He stated that he had seen the certified copies of the House Tax Assessment Register regarding Houses bearing Nos. 312, 390 and 391. These were correct as per the house tax assessment register. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the record of the house of Jot Ram and that a newly constructed house, according to the sanctioned site plan, is exempt from house tax for the first three years, DW 2 Daya Chand, a retired police Inspector, stated that on September 18, 1992 he was posted as an Inspector, Crime Branch, Madhuban. On receipt of a wireless message of D.G.P., Haryana, he along with DSP Narinder Singh reinvestigated the case FIR No. 967 of 18-9-1992. During the course of investigation, they arrested four persons, namely, Rajiv, Badlu, Anand and Tilak Raj. On interrogation, they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got recovered nothing. He proved copies of disclosure statements, Ex. D3 to D6. His statement regarding these documents was objected to by the Public Prosecutor, being inadmissible in evidence. The witness further stated that the accused had got identified the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. D7 to D. 10. These documents were once again objected to by the PP being inadmissible in evidence. The witness also stated that he had recorded the statements of various persons under S. 161, Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know if Chattar Singh, Ramesh and Shamsher Singh, the alleged eye-witnesses, were examined in that case or not. DW. 3 Siri Bhagwan, Senior Pharmacist, General Hospital, Sonepat stated that he had brought the duty register of the doctor. On September 18, 1992 Dr. Subodh Kumar Sehrawat remained on emergency duty in the hospital from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. DW. 4 Narinder Singh Ahlawat, D.S.P. City Ballabgarh stated that this case was reinvestigated by Inspector Daya Chand under his supervision under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Haryana and during investigation the present accused were found innocent and therefore the report was made accordingly. However, Rajiv, Bablu, Anand and Tilak Raj were found having committed the murder of Jaideep. Challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was accordingly filed against the said persons, namely, Rajiv and others. In his cross-examination, he stated that he personally did not interrogate or join in investigation Jot Ram and Jaivir during re-investigation. He also did not recommend any action against them under S. 182, IPC. DW. 5 Manish Malik stated that on September 18, 1992 he was at his house as his grand mother had died and the ceremony was to be held on that day. She was known as Smt. Bhagwanti wife of Shri Shobh Raj Malik. Accused Anand was present at his residence from 10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on that day helping him in serving the guests presenting the occasion. After learning about the implication of Anand in this case, he visited the police station and narrated this incident to the investigating officer. He had also made this statement before the personnel of the Crime Branch who had questioned him in the Rest House. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was situated about half kilometer away from Subhash Chowk, Sonepat. Approximately, a couple of hundred people had attended the ceremony. Shri Mohinder Singh Malik, an Advocate the member of the Bar, was the real brother of his father. Shri Devi Dass, Ex, MLA was his maternal grandfather, Many other respectables of their town were present at the time of the ceremony there was one house intervening between his house and the house of Chaudhary Rizak Ram, Ex.-MLA. Anand and he were students of one school at Dehradoon. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a personal friend and class-mate of Anand. DW. 6 Jai Singh stated that on September 18, 1992 he was present at the house of one Sham at about 12 noon or so, along with appellant Dharambir Singh, one Malik, Sohan Lal and Bandri. They were playing cards and they disbursed after 3 p.m. The mother of Dharambir had called him from amongst them and had taken him away. He had brought all these facts to the notice of the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the house of Dharambir was located in Model Town, Sonepat. He was his neighbour. His house was located more than one kilometer away from Subhash Chowk. He did not know the location of the house of Malik Sobh Raj. The approximate distance between the house of Ch. Rizaq Ram and that of appellant Dharambir was 20 hours (sic). He had narrated all these facts to the police after about one and half months of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as a witness in this case by the defence or that his statement was false to his very knowledge, D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya stated that on September 18, 1992 at about 1 p.m. appellant Sukhbir had come to him at the tea stall of a person, namely, Thakur located opposite Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex, Sonepat, one Ch. Suraj Bhan of Ganaur and one Rambir of village Dabarpur and a couple of more persons were present there at that time. After about 45 minutes or so, they heard commotion and rushed out of the tea stall and learnt that some incident had taken place at Subhash Chowk. He had narrated this incident to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the date on which he had made statement before the police. He also did not remember the dates of Hindu festivals which had fallen last year. He was summoned by the police after about fifteen days of the occurrence at Subhash Chowk. He denied the suggestion that no such incident as narrated by him had taken place or that he was deposing falsely. DW. 8 Prem stated that he was running a business of buffalo trading in partnership with Ranbir accused. On September 18, 1992 he along with Ranbir had gone to village Khewara where they met one Kala and took him along with them to village Asawarpur. They had gone to village Aswarpur in order to make payment to Pardhan of the said village. They came back to Sonepat at about 4-30 p.m. He was examined by the police 3-4 days after the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had no documentary proof with regard to his visit along with accused Ranbir to village Khewara and Aswarpur nor he could produce any written proof with regard to his visits with Ranbir accused on certain other occasions. He could not name the police official who examined him and recorded his statement after two/two and half months after the occurrence. Apart from this statement that he made, he did not make any effort to approach the authorities with regard to the false implication of Ranbir in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being friend of Ranbir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri T. P.S. Mann, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. From the facts as have been detailed above, it would transpire that the prosecution case is based upon the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 Jot Ram, who happens to be the first informant and jaivir, PW. 7. Jaivir, as per the prosecution version, was injured in the occurrence leading to death of Jaideep. The occurrence leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir had taken place at 1-45 p.m. on September 18, 1992 at Sonepat. Jot Ram PW. 6 lodged the first information report at 4-40 p.m. on the same day and within five minutes, the special report reached the Magistrate at Sonepat. The occurrence, in our view, came to be reported with a short span of about three hours and the special report was handed over to the concerned Magistrate very promptly. It is in this background that the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 and PW. 7 has to be appreciated. Learned counsel for the appellants has been at pains to explain to us that PW. 6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. Insofar as PW. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants but find no substance therein whatsoever. As mentioned above, the incident came to be reported to the police within about three hours from when the occurrence took place. It has come in the evidence that whereas Jaideep had succumbed to the injuries received by him at the hands of the appellants. PW. 7 Jaivir was not fit to make a statement when rushed to the hospital. If perhaps PW. 6 had not seen the occurrence, he could not have given the details thereof leading to death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir and that too within a short duration from when the occurrence had taken place. This fact, in itself establishes the presence of PW. 6 at the scene of occurrence. Much has been said about this witness having no house in the town where he is said to have gone to take his meals during interval from the place of his work. It has also been stated that this witness had a house in the village and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to have gone to his house in Sonepat where perhaps he had no house at all. We find no substance in this criticism made to the statement of P.W. 6. If no ceremony regarding 'Grah Parvesh' had separately been performed, nor any invitation cards were printed for the said occasion, it would not suggest that this witness did not have a house at Sonepat. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. Further, he had not only given the number of his house but further stated that his son Jaivir had a vote on the address of this house on the date of occurrence and that electric and water connections of the said house were in his name. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness in going to his house at Sonepat for meals. Insofar as statement of PW. 7 Jaivir is concerned, no dent at all could be made in the same except for what has been noted above. The fact that Anand has been acquitted, and that the witness stated that the received injuries at the hands of Anand. In our view, would not be enough to disbelieve the presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence. As mentioned above, he is an injured witness. He had an incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. It may be recalled that this witness was also admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. The opinion of the doctor is that the probable duration of injury was fresh. Further, when police made application, Ex. PN/1, seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Jaivir, vide Ex. PN/2 it was declared that he was not fit to make a statement. It is only on the next day, i.e., September 19, 1992 that the doctor had opined that he was fit to make a statement. It is, therefore, amply proved that this witness was injured at the same time when Jaideep was attacked by the appellants resulting into his death. The mere fact that the witness named somebody else having caused some injuries whereas the same might have been caused by one of the appellants herein, would not be enough to discard his testimony or to hold that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Even though the appellants led evidence in defence, gist whereof has been reproduced above, nothing based upon the said evidence, has been argued before this Court. We, however, hasten to add that the appellants believed in quantity of evidence and not quality thereof. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. From the facts and circumstances, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants have committed the crime, of which they were charged, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. That being so, no occasion at all arises to set aside the order recorded Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same also to stand dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Revision dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1999CriLJ2083',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '613315'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'V.K. Bali',
		(int) 1 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 2 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 3 => 'RI',
		(int) 4 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 6 => 'Ranvir Singh',
		(int) 7 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 8 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 9 => 'Librarian',
		(int) 10 => 'Ranbir Singh',
		(int) 11 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 12 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 13 => 'Caste Jat',
		(int) 14 => 'Model Town',
		(int) 15 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 16 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 17 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 18 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 19 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 20 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 21 => 'Bachao-Bachao'',
		(int) 22 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 24 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 25 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 26 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 27 => 'D. D. Sharma',
		(int) 28 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 29 => 'Singh',
		(int) 30 => 'Dharambir Singh',
		(int) 31 => 'Singh',
		(int) 32 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 33 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 34 => 'Subhash Mathur',
		(int) 35 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 36 => 'PN/2',
		(int) 37 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 38 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 39 => 'I. Stab',
		(int) 40 => 'Anil Kumar',
		(int) 41 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 42 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 43 => 'Ahlmad',
		(int) 44 => 'Rajesh Kumar',
		(int) 45 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 46 => 'Sat Narain',
		(int) 47 => 'Sunil Arora',
		(int) 48 => 'Ex',
		(int) 49 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 50 => 'Principal',
		(int) 51 => 'Library',
		(int) 52 => 'Ranbir Singh',
		(int) 53 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 54 => 'Sarpanch',
		(int) 55 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 56 => 'Shiv Charan',
		(int) 57 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 58 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 59 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 60 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 61 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 62 => 'Ram Kumar',
		(int) 63 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 64 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 65 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 66 => 'Babu',
		(int) 67 => 'Sukhbir Singh',
		(int) 68 => 'Clerk',
		(int) 69 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 70 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 71 => 'Singh',
		(int) 72 => 'Rajiv, Badlu,',
		(int) 73 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 74 => 'memos Ex',
		(int) 75 => 'Chattar Singh',
		(int) 76 => 'Shamsher Singh',
		(int) 77 => 'Siri Bhagwan',
		(int) 78 => 'Kumar Sehrawat',
		(int) 79 => 'DW',
		(int) 80 => 'Singh Ahlawat',
		(int) 81 => 'Daya Chand',
		(int) 82 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 83 => 'Rajiv',
		(int) 84 => 'Tilak Raj',
		(int) 85 => 'Challan under',
		(int) 86 => 'Rajiv',
		(int) 87 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 88 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 89 => 'Manish Malik',
		(int) 90 => 'Shri Mohinder Singh Malik',
		(int) 91 => 'Shri Devi Dass',
		(int) 92 => 'MLA',
		(int) 93 => 'Jai Singh',
		(int) 94 => 'Dharambir Singh',
		(int) 95 => 'Sohan Lal',
		(int) 96 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 97 => 'Malik Sobh Raj',
		(int) 98 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 99 => 'Sukhbir',
		(int) 100 => 'Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex',
		(int) 101 => 'Suraj Bhan',
		(int) 102 => 'Dabarpur',
		(int) 103 => 'Prem',
		(int) 104 => 'Khewara',
		(int) 105 => 'Asawarpur',
		(int) 106 => 'Aswarpur',
		(int) 107 => 'Khewara',
		(int) 108 => 'Aswarpur',
		(int) 109 => 'P.S. Mann',
		(int) 110 => 'Shri T. P.S. Mann',
		(int) 111 => 'N. K. Sanghi',
		(int) 112 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 113 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 114 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 115 => 'Jot Ram PW',
		(int) 116 => 'Jot Ram',
		(int) 117 => 'Jaivir Singh',
		(int) 118 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 119 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 120 => 'Grah Parvesh'',
		(int) 121 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 122 => 'Ex',
		(int) 123 => 'Jaideep'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J. 1',
		(int) 1 => 'six months',
		(int) 2 => 'three months',
		(int) 3 => 'March 5, 1998',
		(int) 4 => '1998',
		(int) 5 => '1998',
		(int) 6 => 'March 5, 1998',
		(int) 7 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 8 => 'that day',
		(int) 9 => 'the previous winter',
		(int) 10 => 'September 22, 1992',
		(int) 11 => 'about one week',
		(int) 12 => 'the same day',
		(int) 13 => 'about one week',
		(int) 14 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 15 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 16 => 'the same day',
		(int) 17 => 'the same day',
		(int) 18 => 'September 19, 1992',
		(int) 19 => 'September 29, 1992',
		(int) 20 => 'September 19, 1992',
		(int) 21 => '1992',
		(int) 22 => 'February 3, 1992',
		(int) 23 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 24 => 'the day',
		(int) 25 => 'that day',
		(int) 26 => 'about two years',
		(int) 27 => 'the day',
		(int) 28 => 'the day',
		(int) 29 => 'the day',
		(int) 30 => 'October 6, 1992',
		(int) 31 => 'September 22, 1992',
		(int) 32 => 'September 24, 1992',
		(int) 33 => 'the first three years',
		(int) 34 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 35 => 'September 18, 1992 Dr.',
		(int) 36 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 37 => 'that day',
		(int) 38 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 39 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 40 => 'last year',
		(int) 41 => 'about fifteen days',
		(int) 42 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 43 => '3-4 days',
		(int) 44 => 'September 18, 1992',
		(int) 45 => 'the same day',
		(int) 46 => 'the next day',
		(int) 47 => 'September 19, 1992'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 1 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 2 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 3 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 4 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 5 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 6 => 'Rajesh'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S. 34',
		(int) 1 => 'S. 34',
		(int) 2 => 'IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'the Additional Sessions',
		(int) 4 => 'Crl',
		(int) 5 => 'Crl',
		(int) 6 => 'SI Siri Chand',
		(int) 7 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 8 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 9 => 'College',
		(int) 10 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 11 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 12 => 'the Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 13 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 14 => 'Hari Ram',
		(int) 15 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 16 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 17 => 'Jaideep and Dharmavir',
		(int) 18 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 19 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 20 => 'Rajesh',
		(int) 21 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 22 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 23 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 24 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 25 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
		(int) 26 => 'the Civil Hospital',
		(int) 27 => 'the Civil Hospital',
		(int) 28 => 'Jaivir and Jaideep',
		(int) 29 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 30 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 31 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 32 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 33 => 'Pardeep',
		(int) 34 => 'Court',
		(int) 35 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 36 => 'Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital',
		(int) 37 => 'Medical Officer',
		(int) 38 => 'General Hospital',
		(int) 39 => 'Jaibir',
		(int) 40 => 'the Incharge, Police Post',
		(int) 41 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 42 => 'the Incharge Police Post',
		(int) 43 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 44 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 45 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 46 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 47 => 'the Court of CJM',
		(int) 48 => 'State',
		(int) 49 => 'the Court of CJM',
		(int) 50 => 'CJM',
		(int) 51 => 'Arts Block of the College',
		(int) 52 => 'Arts Block',
		(int) 53 => 'Gohana Sonepat',
		(int) 54 => 'Anand Cinema',
		(int) 55 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 56 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 57 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 58 => 'Chowk',
		(int) 59 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 60 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 61 => 'Shisham',
		(int) 62 => 'Old Civil Hospital',
		(int) 63 => 'Court',
		(int) 64 => 'Greh-Parvesh'',
		(int) 65 => 'Greh Parvesh',
		(int) 66 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 67 => 'House',
		(int) 68 => 'IPC',
		(int) 69 => 'Court',
		(int) 70 => 'PW 6 Jot Ram',
		(int) 71 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 72 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 73 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 74 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 75 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 76 => 'CRZ School',
		(int) 77 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 78 => 'Atlas Factory',
		(int) 79 => 'CRZ School',
		(int) 80 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 81 => 'Hindu College',
		(int) 82 => 'Shisham',
		(int) 83 => 'P.C. P.W.',
		(int) 84 => 'Dharamvir',
		(int) 85 => 'PZ',
		(int) 86 => 'the Vigilance Branch',
		(int) 87 => 'Rajiv, Anand',
		(int) 88 => 'Court',
		(int) 89 => 'DW',
		(int) 90 => 'the House Tax Assessment Register',
		(int) 91 => 'DSP',
		(int) 92 => 'the Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 93 => 'PP',
		(int) 94 => 'General Hospital',
		(int) 95 => 'D.S.P. City Ballabgarh',
		(int) 96 => 'the Inspector General of Police',
		(int) 97 => 'IPC',
		(int) 98 => 'DW',
		(int) 99 => 'Smt',
		(int) 100 => 'the Crime Branch',
		(int) 101 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 102 => 'Bar',
		(int) 103 => 'the house of one',
		(int) 104 => 'Sham',
		(int) 105 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 106 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 107 => 'D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya',
		(int) 108 => 'Thakur',
		(int) 109 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 110 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 111 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 112 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 113 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 114 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 115 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 116 => 'Ranbir',
		(int) 117 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 118 => 'Magistrate',
		(int) 119 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 120 => 'P.W. 6',
		(int) 121 => 'Court',
		(int) 122 => 'Court'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'R.I.',
		(int) 1 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 2 => 'Anand',
		(int) 3 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 4 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 5 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 6 => 'Dharambir',
		(int) 7 => 'Anand',
		(int) 8 => 'Mukhtiara',
		(int) 9 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 10 => 'Katha',
		(int) 11 => 'Anand',
		(int) 12 => 'Anand',
		(int) 13 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 14 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 15 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 16 => 'Anand',
		(int) 17 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 18 => 'PW',
		(int) 19 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 20 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 21 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 22 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 23 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 24 => 'P.S.',
		(int) 25 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 26 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 27 => 'Singh',
		(int) 28 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 29 => 'PW',
		(int) 30 => 'sonepat',
		(int) 31 => 'Subhash Chowk',
		(int) 32 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 33 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 34 => 'Village Rathdana',
		(int) 35 => 'Rathdhana',
		(int) 36 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 37 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 38 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 39 => 'Anand',
		(int) 40 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 41 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 42 => 'Cr',
		(int) 43 => 'Siri Chand',
		(int) 44 => 'Cr',
		(int) 45 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 46 => 'Gopal Chand',
		(int) 47 => 'D.G.P.',
		(int) 48 => 'Anand',
		(int) 49 => 'Cr',
		(int) 50 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 51 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 52 => 'Bablu',
		(int) 53 => 'Anand',
		(int) 54 => 'Cr',
		(int) 55 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 56 => 'Anand',
		(int) 57 => 'Anand',
		(int) 58 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 59 => 'Dehradoon',
		(int) 60 => 'Anand',
		(int) 61 => 'Malik',
		(int) 62 => 'Bandri',
		(int) 63 => 'Model Town',
		(int) 64 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 65 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 66 => 'Kala',
		(int) 67 => 'Pardhan',
		(int) 68 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 69 => 'PW',
		(int) 70 => 'PW',
		(int) 71 => 'Jaideep',
		(int) 72 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 73 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 74 => 'PW',
		(int) 75 => 'PW',
		(int) 76 => 'PW',
		(int) 77 => 'PW',
		(int) 78 => 'Anand',
		(int) 79 => 'PW',
		(int) 80 => 'PW',
		(int) 81 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 82 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 83 => 'Rathdana',
		(int) 84 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 85 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 86 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 87 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 88 => 'Sonepat',
		(int) 89 => 'PW',
		(int) 90 => 'Anand',
		(int) 91 => 'Anand',
		(int) 92 => 'Sonepat'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 1 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 2 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 3 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 4 => 'Hindu',
		(int) 5 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 6 => 'Jaivir',
		(int) 7 => 'Jaivir'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '442',
		(int) 1 => '140',
		(int) 2 => '2. Before',
		(int) 3 => '3.',
		(int) 4 => '6',
		(int) 5 => '4.40',
		(int) 6 => '19',
		(int) 7 => '4',
		(int) 8 => '5.',
		(int) 9 => 'up to',
		(int) 10 => '2',
		(int) 11 => '3',
		(int) 12 => '3.00',
		(int) 13 => '4',
		(int) 14 => '5',
		(int) 15 => '6',
		(int) 16 => '6',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '3',
		(int) 19 => '167',
		(int) 20 => '3',
		(int) 21 => '6',
		(int) 22 => 'about 150',
		(int) 23 => 'one',
		(int) 24 => 'about 7-8',
		(int) 25 => '10-12',
		(int) 26 => 'about 15-16',
		(int) 27 => 'about half',
		(int) 28 => 'about 4000-4250',
		(int) 29 => '312/19',
		(int) 30 => '19',
		(int) 31 => 'two',
		(int) 32 => '19',
		(int) 33 => 'One',
		(int) 34 => '10+2',
		(int) 35 => 'about 12',
		(int) 36 => '9',
		(int) 37 => '11',
		(int) 38 => '8',
		(int) 39 => '1.',
		(int) 40 => '312',
		(int) 41 => '390',
		(int) 42 => '391',
		(int) 43 => '967',
		(int) 44 => 'four',
		(int) 45 => '10',
		(int) 46 => '3',
		(int) 47 => '4',
		(int) 48 => '5',
		(int) 49 => 'a couple of hundred',
		(int) 50 => 'one',
		(int) 51 => 'one',
		(int) 52 => '6',
		(int) 53 => 'one',
		(int) 54 => 'more than',
		(int) 55 => 'about one and half months',
		(int) 56 => 'one',
		(int) 57 => 'one',
		(int) 58 => '8',
		(int) 59 => 'one',
		(int) 60 => 'about 4-30 p.m.',
		(int) 61 => 'two/two and half months',
		(int) 62 => '9',
		(int) 63 => '6',
		(int) 64 => '6',
		(int) 65 => '6',
		(int) 66 => '6',
		(int) 67 => '10',
		(int) 68 => '6',
		(int) 69 => 'one',
		(int) 70 => '11',
		(int) 71 => '12',
		(int) 72 => '13'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6-15 p.m.',
		(int) 1 => 'about 1.45 p.m.',
		(int) 2 => '2-15 p.m.',
		(int) 3 => '10 a.m.',
		(int) 4 => 'within few minutes',
		(int) 5 => '24 hours',
		(int) 6 => 'Lunch hours',
		(int) 7 => '1 to 2 p.m.',
		(int) 8 => '1 p.m.',
		(int) 9 => 'about 1-15 p.m.',
		(int) 10 => 'about 20 minutes',
		(int) 11 => '2-3 minutes',
		(int) 12 => 'about 3 p.m.',
		(int) 13 => 'about 3.45/4 p.m.',
		(int) 14 => '8 am to 1 p.m.',
		(int) 15 => 'about five minutes',
		(int) 16 => '2-3 minutes',
		(int) 17 => '18-9-1992',
		(int) 18 => '8 a.m. to 2 p.m.',
		(int) 19 => '2 p.m. to',
		(int) 20 => '8 a.m.',
		(int) 21 => '10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.',
		(int) 22 => 'about 12 noon',
		(int) 23 => '3 p.m.',
		(int) 24 => '20 hours',
		(int) 25 => 'about 1 p.m.',
		(int) 26 => 'about 45 minutes',
		(int) 27 => '1-45 p.m.',
		(int) 28 => '4-40 p.m.',
		(int) 29 => 'five minutes',
		(int) 30 => 'about three hours',
		(int) 31 => 'about three hours'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'second',
		(int) 1 => 'fifth',
		(int) 2 => 'first',
		(int) 3 => 'first',
		(int) 4 => 'first'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 1 => '3.0 cm',
		(int) 2 => '8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary',
		(int) 3 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 4 => '8 cm',
		(int) 5 => '3 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '2.5 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 7 => '3.5 cm x 2.0 cm',
		(int) 8 => '5 cm',
		(int) 9 => '12 cm',
		(int) 10 => '1 cm x 0.5 cm',
		(int) 11 => '2 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 12 => '2.0 cm x 1.5 cm',
		(int) 13 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
		(int) 14 => '2.0 cm x 1.0 cm',
		(int) 15 => 'about 150 meters',
		(int) 16 => 'about one kilometre',
		(int) 17 => 'about five kilometres',
		(int) 18 => 'around one kilometer',
		(int) 19 => 'about one kilometer',
		(int) 20 => 'about half kilometer',
		(int) 21 => 'five kilometres',
		(int) 22 => '3 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 23 => '3.0 cm'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Municipal'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mastan',
		(int) 1 => 'Mastan',
		(int) 2 => 'the Atlas Cycle's',
		(int) 3 => 'the Rest House'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '613315',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 324',
		'appealno' => 'Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998',
		'appellant' => 'Sukhbir and Others',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sukhbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'State v. Rajesh Kumar and;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate and; T.P.S. Mann, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' N.K. Sanghi, Dy. Advocate General (Hy),; Ss. Namla, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-01-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B. Rai and; V.K. Bali, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '</p><p style="text-align: justify;">V.K. Bali, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whereas, Sukhbir, Dharambir and Rajesh alias Pappu, real brothers, who have since been held guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, for having intentionally committed the murder of Jaideep as also under S. 324 read with S. 34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months for having caused injuries to Jaivir, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated March 5, 1998, through present appeal filed by them seek setting aside of the said order, Jot Ram, complainant, who has preferred Crl. Revision No. 442 of 1998 and which revision has been ordered to be heard along with Crl. Appeal No. 140-DB of 1998 seeks more deterrent punishment to the appellants as also compensation on account of death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Before, however, the rival contentions for and against the order of conviction and sentence dated March 5, 1998, as canvassed by learned counsel for the parties are noticed it shall be useful to give backdrop of the events culminating into conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants and the present appeal. It requires to be mentioned here that the appellants herein were tried along with their co-accused Ranvir Singh and Anand, who have since been acquitted. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir came to be reported to the police by Jot Ram, P.W. 6. He made a statement before SI Siri Chand on September 18, 1992 at 4.40, on the basis of which special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Sonepat at 6-15 p.m. on the same date. While unfolding the events leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir, he stated that he was residing in village Rathdhana. He was working as an Assistant Librarian in Hindu College, Sonepat. As usual, that day he had gone to his house for taking lunch from the College and after taking his lunch, his son, namely, Ranbir Singh was going to leave him at the college on a cycle. When he reached Subhash Chowk at about 1.45 p.m. on the bicycle with his son, Sukhbir Singh, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir sons of Mukhtiara, Caste Jat, resident of Rathdhana, at present Model Town, Sonepat, with their common intention, rushed from behind the side of Katha quarters' to the Subhash Chowk. Immediately, on reaching there, they surrounded his son Jaivir and his nephew Jaideep son of Hari Ram, who, after college hours, were standing at Subhash Chowk and waiting for a bus or scooter. Ranbir took Jaideep into his grip from behind. Sukhbir and Rajesh were armed with swords. Anand and Dharambir were armed with knifes. Sukhbir thrust his sword from its sharp side in the chest of Jaideep and Dharmavir gave a knife blow in the chest of Jaideep, as a result of which Jaideep fell on the ground with his face downward. Then Rajesh inflicted injuries with sword on his back. When Jaivir tried to rescue Jaideep, then Anand gave a knife blow to him which hit on his right arm. Thereafter, Dharambir made the face of Jaideep onward and gave a knife blow on his abdomen and gave second knife blow on his left thigh. He and his son Ranbir raised an alarm of 'Bachao-Bachao'. On hearing their noise, Sukhbir, Dharambir, Rajesh, Anand and Ranbir fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. He and his son Ranbir chased to catch them but they ran away through the streets. When he came back to the spot, Jaivir and Jaideep were not found at the spot and on enquiry be came to know that some people had taken them to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Then, he and his son Ranbir went to the Civil Hospital, Sonepat to enquire about Jaivir and Jaideep and he came to know that Jaideep had succumbed to his injuries whereas Jaivir was admitted in the hospital. He further stated that the cause of dispute was that Pardeep, elder brother of Jaideep had contested Municipal election from Ward No. 19, Sonepat against Sukhbir, who had asked Pardeep many times not to contest the election but Pardeep did not withdraw his name from the election. Due to this grudge, Sukhbir and his brothers had caused injuries to Jaivir in the previous winter and the said case was pending in the Court. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants and their co-accused, Ranbir and Anand, who, as mentioned above, has since been acquitted, prosecution examined Dr. D. D. Sharma, Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital, Sonepat as PW. 4. He stated that on September 22, 1992 while posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, he medico legally examined Sukhbir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. There was a scab formation with almost complete healing of the wound on the back of the left shoulder. No redness around the wound was present.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The injury was simple in nature and was caused within a duration of about one week by a blunt weapon. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On the same day, he also medico-legally examined Dharambir Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and found that there was a healed wound with scab formation on the front of his left leg. There was no tenderness or redness present around the wound. The nature of injury was simple and it was caused by a blunt weapon within a duration of about one week. He further stated that on September 18, 1992 the police had moved an application, Ex. PL vide which opinion was sought if Jaivir was fit to make a statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PL/1, declared that Jaivir was not fit to make a statement due to sedation. In his cross-examination, he stated that possibility of the said injuries by police canes could not be ruled out. P.W. 5 Dr. Subhash Mathur stated that on September 18, 1992 at 2-15 p.m. he medically examined Jaibir son of Jot Ram and found following injury on his person :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1. An incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">After X-ray, probable duration of injury was found to be fresh and it was caused by sharp weapon. On the same day he sent ruqa Ex. PN to the Incharge, Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat and the police moved an application, Ex. PN/1 seeking his opinion about the fitness of Jaivir for making statement. He, vide his opinion, Ex. PN/2 declared that Jaivir was not fit to make statement. He also sent ruqa Ex. PN/3 to the Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Sonepat on the same day. On September 19, 1992 the police made an application, Ex. PU to the same effect and vide his opinion, Ex. PO/1 he opined that Jaivir was fit to make a statement. On September 29, 1992, police made an other application, Ex. PQ, on which he had given his opinion, Ex. PQ/1. PW. 8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sonepat, stated that on September 19, 1992 at 10 a.m. he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Jaideep and foundfollowing injuries :- </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'I. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm with regular margin on the chest wall right side on the fifth inter-coastal space obliquely placed, probe could pass up to 8 cm in downward and backward. On further exploration, there was clean rent of pleura of size 3 cm x 2 cm Right lung showed a rent of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on upper lobe. Right pleural cavity was full of blood. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. Stab wound of size 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm on the ebigastrium left side 5 cm lateral to midline below the costal margin. Probing, of the wound was done. The probe could pass upto 12 cm in downward and medial direction. On further exploration, there was about one liter of blood in peritoneal cavity. There was tear of menentery of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm injuring the blood vessels. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Stab wound of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the abdominal wall right lateral side lumbar region. The probe could pass upto 3.00 c.m. On further exploration, the wound was communicating with paritonial cavity. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm on the left lateral wall of abdomen over the lumbar region. The wound was muscle deep. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. Abrasion of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the left knee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. An incised wound of size 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm on the anterior aspect of left thigh. The wound was muscle deep.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, right lung and injury to mesentery vessels. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in natural course of life. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. In his cross-examination he stated that the weapons were not shown to him by the police previous thereto nor hadthey sought his opinion and all the stab wounds were possible by any of the swords and the knife. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. PW. 1 Anil Kumar draftsman proved having prepared site plan, Ex. PA on the demarcation of Jot Ram, Jaivir and Ranbir. PW. 3 Rakesh Kumar, Ahlmad, attached to the Court of CJM, Sonepat, only stated that he had brought the summoned record of case No. 134/1 of 1992 titled as State v. Rajesh Kumar and others, P.S. City Sonepat which was pending in the Court of CJM, Sonepat. He also stated that he had seen FIR No. 167 dated February 3, 1992 which was part of judicial record and a copy of the same was Ex. PB. In his cross-examination, he stated that the case pending before the CJM was against Rajesh, Dharambir and Sat Narain sons of Mukhtiar Singh, residents of Rathdhana. PW. 3 Sunil Arora only deposed about having taken photographs Ex. PA to P4 from different angles of the spot. Jot Ram, the first informant, who was examined as PW. 6 deposed in tune with the statement made by him before the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that on September 18, 1992 he was on duty in the College Library which is situated in Arts Block of the College and that Arts Block is about 150 paces from the railway crossing one Gohana Sonepat road. Besides him, there were about 7-8 officials in the library. Lunch hours were from 1 to 2 p.m. He denied the suggestion that there were instructions of Principal of the college not to leave the college during lunch hours. On the day of occurrence, he did not attend the Library after lunch and an intimation to that effect was sent. An application for leave was given but he had not kept a copy thereof. On that day, he left the college for his meals at 1 p.m. on his own cycle and he reached at his residence which is in New Pancham Nagar at about 1-15 p.m. His house was at a distance of about 150 meters from Anand Cinema, sonepat and the distance between his house and Hindu College was about one kilometre. His wife, his son Ranbir singh and other family members were in the house. He further stated that he stayed at his residence for about 20 minutes and he followed the same route while going back to the college with his son Ranbir Singh. The appellants and their co-accused crossed them at Subhash Chowk from a distance of 10-12 paces. Subhash Chowk was a busy market. After the accused passed through, they followed their way to the college. At that time, they did not suspect the accused but when they encircled Jaideep, they were at a distance of about 15-16 paces. When they were near Subhash Chowk, they found the accused encircling Jaideep and his son Jaivir near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. The accused ran away through Municipal street which passes from the back of Old Civil Hospital, Sonepat. Police Post Model Town, was at a distance of about half furlong from the place of occurrence. They went to hospital on a cycle at about 3 p.m. To a Court question as to at what time the police recorded his statement in the hospital, he replied that the police recorded his statement at about 3.45/4 p.m. He denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that non ceremony regarding 'Greh-Parvesh' was separately performed nor any invitation card was printed or issued to any one. However, cards were printed at the time of marriage of his son Mastan and the said cards were only with regard to the marriage of his son. He denied the suggestion that Greh Parvesh ceremony was also performed at the time of the marriage of his son which took place about two years after the occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that his house was not in existence on the day of occurrence. On the day of occurrence, his son Mastan was Sarpanch of village Rathdhana which is at a distance of about five kilometres from Sonepat, Village Rathdana had a population of about 4000-4250 voters. All the votes of his family members at that time were prepared in village Rathdhana. He, however, again said that his son Jaivir had a vote at Sonepat in House No. 312/19. On the day of occurrence the electricity and water supply connections in respect of the said house were in his name. His nephew Jaideep and Ashok were residing in Ward No. 19, Sonepat in separate houses. They had two houses in ward No. 19 besides his own house. One house was owned by his younger brother Shiv Charan. He admitted that with regard to the same occurrence, some other persons were also challaned under S. 302, IPC and that the case was pending in the Court. He, however, denied the suggestion that they named the accused only on suspicion. PW. 7 Jaivir supported the version given by PW 6 Jot Ram in its all material details. Besides stating that accused Ranbir caught hold of Jaideep from behind and that appellant Sukhbir gave sword blow in the chest of Jaideep, he also stated that appellant Dharambir stabbed with knife in the chest of Jaideep. Thereafter, appellant Rajesh inflicted a sword blow on the back of Jaideep. When he tried to save Jaideep, accused Anand inflicted a knife blow on his right arm. Thereafter appellant Dharambir inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen and left thigh. The occurrence was witnessed by his father and brother Ranbir. In his cross-examination, he stated that at that time he was a student of 10+2 in CRZ School, Sonepat and his school timings were from 8 am to 1 p.m. Jat School must be around one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that buses and tempo did not go to their village from Subhash Chowk but only from Atlas Factory, Sonepat. He rather stated that there was no regular bus stop at the Atlas Cycle's gate and on the other hand, Subhash Chowk had a regular bus stop which was near to CRZ School. Hindu College was also at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. He collected Jaideep from Hindu College and then both of them came to Subhash Chowk for boarding a bus/tempo for going to their village. They came about five minutes before the occurrence on foot. They were standing at the time of occurrence near a Shisham tree. The occurrence lasted for 2-3 minutes. His father and brother had come to their rescue. He had seen his father and brother from a distance of about 12 paces. He denied the suggestion that neither the accused attacked nor caused injuries to them nor his father and brother witnessed the occurrence. PW. 9 Inspector Ram Kumar stated that on October 6, 1992 he had prepared and submitted the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. P.W. 11 Siri Chand, Inspector deposed about the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. He also stated that on September 22, 1992 he had arrested the accused and had moved an application, Ex. PJ/1 for the medical examination of accused Sukhbir and Dharamvir. On September 24, 1992 he interrogated the accused and they made disclosure statements, Ex. PY, PY/1, PY/2 and PY/3 and pursuant thereto accused Rajesh got recovered all the weapons vide recovery memo Ex. PZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C., appellant Sukhbir Singh stated that he was innocent and investigation of this case was also conducted by the Vigilance Branch and in that he was found innocent whereas Rajiv, Anand, Tilak Raj and Babu were challaned by the police and they were facing trial in the Court. Statements made by other appellants are also similar to the one made by Sukhbir Singh appellant. In their evidence, appellants examined Gopal Chand, Clerk as DW. 1. He stated that he had seen the certified copies of the House Tax Assessment Register regarding Houses bearing Nos. 312, 390 and 391. These were correct as per the house tax assessment register. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the record of the house of Jot Ram and that a newly constructed house, according to the sanctioned site plan, is exempt from house tax for the first three years, DW 2 Daya Chand, a retired police Inspector, stated that on September 18, 1992 he was posted as an Inspector, Crime Branch, Madhuban. On receipt of a wireless message of D.G.P., Haryana, he along with DSP Narinder Singh reinvestigated the case FIR No. 967 of 18-9-1992. During the course of investigation, they arrested four persons, namely, Rajiv, Badlu, Anand and Tilak Raj. On interrogation, they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got recovered nothing. He proved copies of disclosure statements, Ex. D3 to D6. His statement regarding these documents was objected to by the Public Prosecutor, being inadmissible in evidence. The witness further stated that the accused had got identified the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. D7 to D. 10. These documents were once again objected to by the PP being inadmissible in evidence. The witness also stated that he had recorded the statements of various persons under S. 161, Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know if Chattar Singh, Ramesh and Shamsher Singh, the alleged eye-witnesses, were examined in that case or not. DW. 3 Siri Bhagwan, Senior Pharmacist, General Hospital, Sonepat stated that he had brought the duty register of the doctor. On September 18, 1992 Dr. Subodh Kumar Sehrawat remained on emergency duty in the hospital from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. DW. 4 Narinder Singh Ahlawat, D.S.P. City Ballabgarh stated that this case was reinvestigated by Inspector Daya Chand under his supervision under the orders of the Inspector General of Police, Haryana and during investigation the present accused were found innocent and therefore the report was made accordingly. However, Rajiv, Bablu, Anand and Tilak Raj were found having committed the murder of Jaideep. Challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was accordingly filed against the said persons, namely, Rajiv and others. In his cross-examination, he stated that he personally did not interrogate or join in investigation Jot Ram and Jaivir during re-investigation. He also did not recommend any action against them under S. 182, IPC. DW. 5 Manish Malik stated that on September 18, 1992 he was at his house as his grand mother had died and the ceremony was to be held on that day. She was known as Smt. Bhagwanti wife of Shri Shobh Raj Malik. Accused Anand was present at his residence from 10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on that day helping him in serving the guests presenting the occasion. After learning about the implication of Anand in this case, he visited the police station and narrated this incident to the investigating officer. He had also made this statement before the personnel of the Crime Branch who had questioned him in the Rest House. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house was situated about half kilometer away from Subhash Chowk, Sonepat. Approximately, a couple of hundred people had attended the ceremony. Shri Mohinder Singh Malik, an Advocate the member of the Bar, was the real brother of his father. Shri Devi Dass, Ex, MLA was his maternal grandfather, Many other respectables of their town were present at the time of the ceremony there was one house intervening between his house and the house of Chaudhary Rizak Ram, Ex.-MLA. Anand and he were students of one school at Dehradoon. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a personal friend and class-mate of Anand. DW. 6 Jai Singh stated that on September 18, 1992 he was present at the house of one Sham at about 12 noon or so, along with appellant Dharambir Singh, one Malik, Sohan Lal and Bandri. They were playing cards and they disbursed after 3 p.m. The mother of Dharambir had called him from amongst them and had taken him away. He had brought all these facts to the notice of the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the house of Dharambir was located in Model Town, Sonepat. He was his neighbour. His house was located more than one kilometer away from Subhash Chowk. He did not know the location of the house of Malik Sobh Raj. The approximate distance between the house of Ch. Rizaq Ram and that of appellant Dharambir was 20 hours (sic). He had narrated all these facts to the police after about one and half months of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had been introduced as a witness in this case by the defence or that his statement was false to his very knowledge, D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya stated that on September 18, 1992 at about 1 p.m. appellant Sukhbir had come to him at the tea stall of a person, namely, Thakur located opposite Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex, Sonepat, one Ch. Suraj Bhan of Ganaur and one Rambir of village Dabarpur and a couple of more persons were present there at that time. After about 45 minutes or so, they heard commotion and rushed out of the tea stall and learnt that some incident had taken place at Subhash Chowk. He had narrated this incident to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the date on which he had made statement before the police. He also did not remember the dates of Hindu festivals which had fallen last year. He was summoned by the police after about fifteen days of the occurrence at Subhash Chowk. He denied the suggestion that no such incident as narrated by him had taken place or that he was deposing falsely. DW. 8 Prem stated that he was running a business of buffalo trading in partnership with Ranbir accused. On September 18, 1992 he along with Ranbir had gone to village Khewara where they met one Kala and took him along with them to village Asawarpur. They had gone to village Aswarpur in order to make payment to Pardhan of the said village. They came back to Sonepat at about 4-30 p.m. He was examined by the police 3-4 days after the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had no documentary proof with regard to his visit along with accused Ranbir to village Khewara and Aswarpur nor he could produce any written proof with regard to his visits with Ranbir accused on certain other occasions. He could not name the police official who examined him and recorded his statement after two/two and half months after the occurrence. Apart from this statement that he made, he did not make any effort to approach the authorities with regard to the false implication of Ranbir in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being friend of Ranbir. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. We have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri T. P.S. Mann, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. From the facts as have been detailed above, it would transpire that the prosecution case is based upon the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 Jot Ram, who happens to be the first informant and jaivir, PW. 7. Jaivir, as per the prosecution version, was injured in the occurrence leading to death of Jaideep. The occurrence leading to death of Jaideep and injuries to Jaivir had taken place at 1-45 p.m. on September 18, 1992 at Sonepat. Jot Ram PW. 6 lodged the first information report at 4-40 p.m. on the same day and within five minutes, the special report reached the Magistrate at Sonepat. The occurrence, in our view, came to be reported with a short span of about three hours and the special report was handed over to the concerned Magistrate very promptly. It is in this background that the eye-witness account given by PW. 6 and PW. 7 has to be appreciated. Learned counsel for the appellants has been at pains to explain to us that PW. 6 Jot Ram is not only highly interested in success of prosecution, being related to deceased and injured but he was not present at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the statement made by him. Insofar as PW. 7 Jaivir Singh is concerned, the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellants against him is that insofar as he is concerned, he is said to have received injury at the hands of Anand, who had since been acquitted and, therefore, no reliance should be placed upon the testimony of this witness as well. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants but find no substance therein whatsoever. As mentioned above, the incident came to be reported to the police within about three hours from when the occurrence took place. It has come in the evidence that whereas Jaideep had succumbed to the injuries received by him at the hands of the appellants. PW. 7 Jaivir was not fit to make a statement when rushed to the hospital. If perhaps PW. 6 had not seen the occurrence, he could not have given the details thereof leading to death of Jaideep and injuries sustained by Jaivir and that too within a short duration from when the occurrence had taken place. This fact, in itself establishes the presence of PW. 6 at the scene of occurrence. Much has been said about this witness having no house in the town where he is said to have gone to take his meals during interval from the place of his work. It has also been stated that this witness had a house in the village and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to have gone to his house in Sonepat where perhaps he had no house at all. We find no substance in this criticism made to the statement of P.W. 6. If no ceremony regarding 'Grah Parvesh' had separately been performed, nor any invitation cards were printed for the said occasion, it would not suggest that this witness did not have a house at Sonepat. It is true that this witness had a house in village Rathdana, stated to be five kilometres from Sonepat and in this village, all his family members were having votes but that does not mean that this witness die not or could not have a house in Sonepat as well. Further, he had not only given the number of his house but further stated that his son Jaivir had a vote on the address of this house on the date of occurrence and that electric and water connections of the said house were in his name. It appears to us that this house had since recently been constructed by this witness at Sonepat and, may be, he was visiting his village house as well but at the same time he could well be going to his house for meals at Sonepat from his place of work. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of this witness in going to his house at Sonepat for meals. Insofar as statement of PW. 7 Jaivir is concerned, no dent at all could be made in the same except for what has been noted above. The fact that Anand has been acquitted, and that the witness stated that the received injuries at the hands of Anand. In our view, would not be enough to disbelieve the presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence. As mentioned above, he is an injured witness. He had an incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of lateral aspect of right upper arm, 3.0 cm above the right elbow joint. Fresh bleeding was present. It may be recalled that this witness was also admitted in the hospital immediately after the occurrence. The opinion of the doctor is that the probable duration of injury was fresh. Further, when police made application, Ex. PN/1, seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Jaivir, vide Ex. PN/2 it was declared that he was not fit to make a statement. It is only on the next day, i.e., September 19, 1992 that the doctor had opined that he was fit to make a statement. It is, therefore, amply proved that this witness was injured at the same time when Jaideep was attacked by the appellants resulting into his death. The mere fact that the witness named somebody else having caused some injuries whereas the same might have been caused by one of the appellants herein, would not be enough to discard his testimony or to hold that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Even though the appellants led evidence in defence, gist whereof has been reproduced above, nothing based upon the said evidence, has been argued before this Court. We, however, hasten to add that the appellants believed in quantity of evidence and not quality thereof. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. From the facts and circumstances, as have been fully detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants have committed the crime, of which they were charged, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. That being so, no occasion at all arises to set aside the order recorded Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same also to stand dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Revision dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1999CriLJ2083',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '613315'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

PERSON: V.K. Bali, Sukhbir, Dharambir, RI, Jot Ram, Jaivir, Ranvir Singh, Jot Ram, Jaivir, Librarian, Ranbir Singh, Subhash Chowk, Sukhbir Singh, Caste Jat, Model Town, Jaivir, Sukhbir, Dharambir, Sukhbir, Jaivir, Dharambir, Bachao-Bachao', Sukhbir, Ranbir, Jaivir, Sukhbir, Sukhbir, D. D. Sharma, Sukhbir Singh, Singh, Dharambir Singh, Singh, Jaivir, Jaivir, Subhash Mathur, Jot Ram, PN/2, Jaivir, Jaivir, I. Stab, Anil Kumar, Jot Ram, Jaivir, Ahlmad, Rajesh Kumar, Dharambir, Sat Narain, Sunil Arora, Ex, Jot Ram, Principal, Library, Ranbir Singh, Jaivir, Sarpanch, Jaivir, Shiv Charan, Jaivir, Sukhbir, Ranbir, Subhash Chowk, Subhash Chowk, Ram Kumar, Sukhbir, Sukhbir Singh, Tilak Raj, Babu, Sukhbir Singh, Clerk, Jot Ram, Haryana, Singh, Rajiv, Badlu,, Tilak Raj, memos Ex, Chattar Singh, Shamsher Singh, Siri Bhagwan, Kumar Sehrawat, DW, Singh Ahlawat, Daya Chand, Haryana, Rajiv, Tilak Raj, Challan under, Rajiv, Jot Ram, Jaivir, Manish Malik, Shri Mohinder Singh Malik, Shri Devi Dass, MLA, Jai Singh, Dharambir Singh, Sohan Lal, Dharambir, Malik Sobh Raj, Dharambir, Sukhbir, Chakor Haryana Tourism Complex, Suraj Bhan, Dabarpur, Prem, Khewara, Asawarpur, Aswarpur, Khewara, Aswarpur, P.S. Mann, Shri T. P.S. Mann, N. K. Sanghi, Haryana, Jot Ram, Jaivir, Jot Ram PW, Jot Ram, Jaivir Singh, Jaivir, Jaivir, Grah Parvesh', Jaivir, Ex, Jaideep

DATE: J. 1, six months, three months, March 5, 1998, 1998, 1998, March 5, 1998, September 18, 1992, that day, the previous winter, September 22, 1992, about one week, the same day, about one week, September 18, 1992, September 18, 1992, the same day, the same day, September 19, 1992, September 29, 1992, September 19, 1992, 1992, February 3, 1992, September 18, 1992, the day, that day, about two years, the day, the day, the day, October 6, 1992, September 22, 1992, September 24, 1992, the first three years, September 18, 1992, September 18, 1992 Dr., September 18, 1992, that day, September 18, 1992, September 18, 1992, last year, about fifteen days, September 18, 1992, 3-4 days, September 18, 1992, the same day, the next day, September 19, 1992

PRODUCT: Rajesh, Rajesh, Rajesh, Rajesh, Rajesh, Rajesh, Rajesh

ORG: S. 34, S. 34, IPC, the Additional Sessions, Crl, Crl, SI Siri Chand, Magistrate, Hindu College, College, Ranbir, Rathdhana, the Subhash Chowk, Jaideep, Hari Ram, Subhash Chowk, Ranbir, Jaideep and Dharmavir, Jaideep, Jaideep, Rajesh, Ranbir, Dharambir, Ranbir, Ranbir, Jaivir and Jaideep, the Civil Hospital, the Civil Hospital, Jaivir and Jaideep, Jaideep, Pardeep, Jaideep, Pardeep, Pardeep, Court, Ranbir, Satya Om Eye & Maternity Hospital, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jaibir, the Incharge, Police Post, Civil Hospital, the Incharge Police Post, Civil Hospital, Civil Hospital, Jaideep, Ranbir, the Court of CJM, State, the Court of CJM, CJM, Arts Block of the College, Arts Block, Gohana Sonepat, Anand Cinema, Hindu College, Ranbir, Subhash Chowk, Chowk, Jaideep, Jaideep, Shisham, Old Civil Hospital, Court, Greh-Parvesh', Greh Parvesh, Rathdhana, House, IPC, Court, PW 6 Jot Ram, Ranbir, Jaideep, Dharambir, Jaideep, Dharambir, CRZ School, Subhash Chowk, Atlas Factory, CRZ School, Hindu College, Hindu College, Shisham, P.C. P.W., Dharamvir, PZ, the Vigilance Branch, Rajiv, Anand, Court, DW, the House Tax Assessment Register, DSP, the Public Prosecutor, PP, General Hospital, D.S.P. City Ballabgarh, the Inspector General of Police, IPC, DW, Smt, the Crime Branch, Subhash Chowk, Bar, the house of one, Sham, Dharambir, Subhash Chowk, D.W. 7 Ramesh Dahiya, Thakur, Subhash Chowk, Subhash Chowk, Ranbir, Ranbir, Ranbir, Ranbir, Ranbir, Ranbir, Magistrate, Magistrate, Jaideep, P.W. 6, Court, Court

GPE: R.I., Sonepat, Anand, Sonepat, Rathdhana, Sonepat, Dharambir, Anand, Mukhtiara, Sonepat, Katha, Anand, Anand, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, Anand, Sonepat, PW, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, P.S., Sonepat, Sonepat, Singh, Rathdhana, PW, sonepat, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat, Sonepat, Village Rathdana, Rathdhana, Sonepat, Sonepat, Jaideep, Anand, Sonepat, Sonepat, Cr, Siri Chand, Cr, P.C., Gopal Chand, D.G.P., Anand, Cr, P.C., Sonepat, Bablu, Anand, Cr, P.C., Anand, Anand, Sonepat, Dehradoon, Anand, Malik, Bandri, Model Town, Sonepat, Sonepat, Kala, Pardhan, Sonepat, PW, PW, Jaideep, Sonepat, Sonepat, PW, PW, PW, PW, Anand, PW, PW, Sonepat, Sonepat, Rathdana, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, Sonepat, PW, Anand, Anand, Sonepat

NORP: Jaivir, Jaivir, Jaivir, Jaivir, Hindu, Jaivir, Jaivir, Jaivir

CARDINAL: 442, 140, 2. Before, 3., 6, 4.40, 19, 4, 5., up to, 2, 3, 3.00, 4, 5, 6, 6, 1, 3, 167, 3, 6, about 150, one, about 7-8, 10-12, about 15-16, about half, about 4000-4250, 312/19, 19, two, 19, One, 10+2, about 12, 9, 11, 8, 1., 312, 390, 391, 967, four, 10, 3, 4, 5, a couple of hundred, one, one, 6, one, more than, about one and half months, one, one, 8, one, about 4-30 p.m., two/two and half months, 9, 6, 6, 6, 6, 10, 6, one, 11, 12, 13

TIME: 6-15 p.m., about 1.45 p.m., 2-15 p.m., 10 a.m., within few minutes, 24 hours, Lunch hours, 1 to 2 p.m., 1 p.m., about 1-15 p.m., about 20 minutes, 2-3 minutes, about 3 p.m., about 3.45/4 p.m., 8 am to 1 p.m., about five minutes, 2-3 minutes, 18-9-1992, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., 2 p.m. to, 8 a.m., 10 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., about 12 noon, 3 p.m., 20 hours, about 1 p.m., about 45 minutes, 1-45 p.m., 4-40 p.m., five minutes, about three hours, about three hours

ORDINAL: second, fifth, first, first, first

QUANTITY: 3 cm x 1 cm, 3.0 cm, 8 Dr. B. D. Chaudhary, 3 cm x 2 cm, 8 cm, 3 cm x 2 cm, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm, 5 cm, 12 cm, 1 cm x 0.5 cm, 2 cm x 1.5 cm, 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm, 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm, about 150 meters, about one kilometre, about five kilometres, around one kilometer, about one kilometer, about half kilometer, five kilometres, 3 cm x 1 cm, 3.0 cm

LOC: Municipal

FAC: Mastan, Mastan, the Atlas Cycle's, the Rest House