Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chatter Singh @ Nanha vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.26-SB of 2008
Date of Decision : 04.12.2012
Chatter Singh @ Nanha
.......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.102-SB of 2008
Date of Decision : 04.12.2012
Rajbir Singh and others
.......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
****
Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate,
for appellant-Rajesh @ Bander.
Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate,
for appellants Rajbir, Umed Singh and Leela @ Raj Narian.
Mr. Vikram Mandhan, Advocate,
for Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate,
for appellants-Vikram and Chattar Singh @ Nanha.
Mr. Rudraneel Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -2- By way of the instant appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 14/20.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Jind, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court'), whereby all the accused (herein 'the appellants') have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Accused- appellant, Leela @ Raj Narain, has also been convicted under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, both the sentences of accused Leela @ Raj Narain, have been ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned trial Court in opening para 2 of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:-
"2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.6.2003 ASI Bhim Singh alongwith other police officials were present at Old Bus Stand Uchana. In the meanwhile, Sh. Khazan Chand son of Gopi Ram, Caste Mahajan, r/o Uchana Mandi met him and produced before him MLR belonging to him. On this ASI recorded CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -3- his statement to the effect that he is resident of Uchana Mandi. He stated that he was having a Grain Merchant shop in Grian Market, Uchana under the name and style of Copi Ram Suresh Kumar. On 23.6.2006 at about 11.15 AM, he went to PNB Uchana mandi to withdraw the cash amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He kept the amount in a cloth bag having a chain. When he reached near 'Rajbaha', then three young boys came on a Hero Honda Motor cycle. All those boys stopped him and started snatching his bag in which Rs.1,50,000/- were kept. On objecting by him, one of those persons took out his pistol and hit the butt of pistol on his head. Then the second person took out his pistol and hit the butt four times on his head. Then the third person inflicted blow with iron rod on his both hands. All the three persons dragged him on the road and inflicted the injuries on his knees. They snatched the bag containing Rs.1,50,000/- from him. The belt of the bag was left in his hand. Then his uncle Mittersain son of Nigahia Ram, Mahajan reached at the spot and nearby shop-keepers also rushed the spot on hearing the noise. All the three persons sped away from the spot towards the station side on their motor cycle. They also threatened the complainant to kill him with fire shot in case the bag was not handed over to them. Then CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -4- hus uncle admitted him to CHC Uchana for treatment. On the basis of this statement, case under Section 392 IPC and 25 of Arms Act was registered. During the investigation, accused were arrested. They made their disclosure statements about commission of dacoity and involvement of total seven accused in the offence and thus offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code was added lateron. In pursuance of disclosure statement made by the accused persons, recovery was effected from the possession of each of the accused...."
Upon presentation of challan, charge under Section 395 IPC was framed against all the accused-appellants and Section 25 of the Arms Act, against Leela @ Raj Narain, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, as the accused-Kuldeep died on 10.10.2003, therefore, proceedings were dropped qua him.
In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined Kuldeep Singh, Additional Ahlmad to JMIC, Hisar, as PW1; Shamsher Singh, Copyist in the Court of SDJM, Hansi, as PW2; HC Dharambir Singh as PW3; Khazan Chand as PW4; Mitter Sain as PW5, Balwan Singh, SIDPO as PW6; SI Prem Chand as PW7; Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman as PW8; ASI Ved Singh as PW9; SI Sohan Singh as PW10; SI Sadhu Ram as PW11; ASI Mahabir Singh as PW12; SI Jitender Singh as PW13; SI Dalbir Singh CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -5- as PW14; HC Mahabir Singh as PW15; Constable Vinod Kumar as PW16; ASI Bhim Singh as PW17; and Shri Niwas, Stenographer, District Magistrate, Jind; as PW18. PWs Constable Mahender Singh; Constable Nasib Singh and Constable Rameshwar Dass, were given up as unnecessary.
In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused-appellants denied the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, they examined MHC Amar Singh as DW1.
The learned trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals, which were admitted by this Court vide orders dated 09.01.2008 and 24.01.2008, respectively.
The learned counsel for the appellants contend that the prosecution version is highly doubtful in the light of the fact that no identification parade was conducted by the police authorities to establish the identity of the accused. It is argued that in the initial version, the accused have been stated to be three in number. However, the challan was filed against seven accused, without their being any evidence of their involvement in the alleged crime.
The learned counsel further contend that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the place of occurrence is a thickly populated area. But surprisingly, nobody from the locality has been cited as an eyewitness. The only alleged eyewitness, PW5 Mitter Sen, CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -6- being uncle of the complainant, an interested witness.
The learned counsel further contend that the complainant, Khazan Chand, while appearing as PW4, identified only accused- appellant, Umed and none else. Moroever, Mitter Sen, PW5, failed to identify any of the accused.
The learned counsel lastly contend that the accused- appellant has already suffered protracted trial for about a decade. Therefore, he prays that in the event of dismissal of the appeals on merits, a lenient view may be taken qua the sentence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond any doubt and the version of the complainant finds full corroboration from the testimony of PW5, Mitter Sen.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
Khazan Singh, the complainant, appeared as PW4 and deposed about the incident. He has corroborated his version given in the complaint, Ex.PJ. He also identified the accused, Umed, in the Court. The testimony of the complainant is further corroborated by the eyewitness, Mitter Sen, who appeared as PW5. He deposed that on hearing the shouts of his nephew, Khazan Singh, he reached the spot and found three young persons were trying to snatch the bag from Khazan Chand. Those persons were carrying pistols and iron rods. One of them inflicted blow on the head of the complainant with CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -7- the iron rod. He also deposed about dragging of the complainant and snatching of bag containing the money. He also identified Umed in the Court. Therefore, it emerges that both these witnesses are corroborative on material points. It has also come on record that the accused Rajesh, Vikram, Rajbir and Kuldeep had suffered disclosure statements on different occasions and on the basis of these disclosure statements, amount was also recovered from them. The complainant also stated that he was unable to identify the other accused due to passage of time.
From the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused-appellants. However, keeping in view the fact that the accused have been suffering the agony of protracted trial for about a decade and as per the custody certificates furnished by the learned State counsel, they have not been found to be involved in any FIR during the last five years, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met in case the conviction of the accused appellant is upheld while the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 395 IPC is reduced to 07 years. Ordered accordingly. The amount of fine shall remain the same.
The present appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
However, keeping in view the nature of offence committed by the accused-appellants the prayer for concurrent running of CRA Nos.26-SB and 102-SB of 2008 -8- sentences is declined. CRM Nos.14944-46 of 2011, are accordingly dismissed.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 04.12.2012 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No