Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagbir Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.203-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 29.7.2010
Jagbir Singh and others
... Appellants
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.B.S.Saroha, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl.AG, Haryana.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Jagbir, Satbir and Kapoor have filed this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 15.1.2002 and order of sentence dated 22.1.2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, arising out of FIR No. 475 dated 28.8.1998 under Sections 395/397 IPC and FIR No.476 dated 28.8.1998 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, Police Station City, Sonepat.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Section 412 IPC. Accused Satbir was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months each under Section 412 IPC. Accused Satbir was also sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Co-accused Anup Singh and Mahabir were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Against acquittal, no appeal by the State.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.8.1998, statement of Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 2 Prem Kumar was recorded by SI Ajit Singh. Prem Kumar reported to the police that he was a driver on Tata Sumo No.HR-10-B-6464. At about 3.30 PM, 3 assailants came to his house to hire Tata Sumo as a taxi to shift ailing person from Civil Hospital, Sonepat, to Rohtak. Assailants were not known to him and on enquiry, they told that they were known to Naresh Kumar, owner of the vehicle. Naresh Kumar was present in Sector 14 alongwith Jeep and that jeep was owned by his brother Suresh. After that, he along with assailants in Tata Sumo reached near Vikram Palace. In the meantime, Maruti Car No. HR-12-C-0141 came from the back side. Two young persons were in the Maruti Car. While over taking the Tata Sumo, occupants of the car uttered in a loud voice that now the vehicle was in their possession and directed the assailants to throw the driver somewhere and bring Tata Sumo to a agreed place. Assailants sitting in the Tata Sumo demanded keys from him and when he refused to hand over the keys, then one of the assailants came on the front seat. Keys of the vehicle were snatched by aiming pistol towards his temple and directed him to drive the vehicle. Vehicle was in the area of Murthal. When vehicle had reached near Sector 15 Police Post, then after removing keys and breaking window pane of the front door, he raised hue and cry. When police party came towards Tata Sumo, then all the three assailants were apprehended by the police. Assailants had tried to flee away. They disclosed their names as Kapoor, Satbir and Jagbir. Two live cartridges and one pistol were recovered from Satbir. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. Accused were formally arrested in this case and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 3
Accused were charged under Sections 395/397 IPC. Accused Satbir was also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PW1 SI Ram Avtar had recorded formal FIR (Ex.P1) on receipt of ruqa (Ex.P2) on 28.8.1998. On receipt of another ruqa (Ex.P3) dated 28.8.1998, formal FIR (Ex.P4) under the Arms Act was also recorded against Satbir.
PW2 Inder Pal had prepared scaled site plan (Ex.P5) with its correct marginal notes.
PW3 Constable Ram Dass stated that he along with Constable Sukhbir while on patrol duty was going towards Murthal Check Post. Then on hearing raula, they had gone towards Tara Sumo No. HR-10-B- 6464. Tata Sumo was signalled to stop by stationing zepsy in front of Tata Sumo. Jagbir, Satbir and Kapoor were arrested after alighting from Tata Sumo. Country made pistol along with two live cartridges was recovered from Satbir. Cartridges along with pistol were taken into police possession vide separate memo. Accused were produced before the Incharge of Police Post, Sector 14, Sonepat. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
PW4 Prem Kumar, complainant, has supported the prosecution story by saying as to how he was contacted by the assailants and was being taken towards Sector 14, Sonepat.
PW5 Naresh Kumar was the owner of Tata Sumo No. HR-10- B-6464, and stated that Prem Kumar was the driver. Tata Sumo was on superdari with him as per order of the Court.
PW6 Constable Sukhbir Singh has supported the version of Constable Ram Dass by saying that they had apprehended the accused along Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 4 with Tata Sumo.
PW7 SI Ajit Singh is the Investigating Officer.
PW8 Silak Ram, Reader to District Magistrate, Sonepat, stated that sanction (Ex.PH) was accorded by the District Magistrate, Sonepat, to launch prosecution against accused Satbir.
PW9 DSP Ram Kishan after completion of investigation had submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, accused were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned State counsel and gone through the evidence on file.
After arguing for some time, when learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any deficiency or infirmity in the impugned judgment, then argued that occurrence is dated 28.8.1998. At that time, appellant Satbir was 23 years' old, Jagbir was 27 years' old and Kapoor was 25 years' old. They belong to poor family. They have already undergone more than six months out of actual sentence. Argued that judgment of trial Court is not challenged on the point of conviction. Requested to take lenient view.
Learned State counsel argued that Prem Kumar was driver on Tata Sumo No. HR-10-B-6464 owned by Naresh Kumar. Appellants had gone to the house of Prem Kumar to hire Tata Sumo to shift ailing person Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 5 from Civil Hospital, Sonepat, to Rohtak. When Tata Sumo was being taken towards Civil Hospital, Sonepat, then Prem Kumar was forced to abandon the vehicle with the help of pistol. Evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
No doubt, learned defence counsel for the appellants stated at Bar that impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction, but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence to opine as to whether offence was committed by the appellants or not. Evidence on the file shows that Prem Kumar was driver on Tata Sumo No. HR-10-B-6464. Tata Sumo was owned by Naresh Kumar. Naresh Kumar appeared in Court and stated that he is the owner of Tata Sumo No. HR-10-B-6464 and the vehicle is on superdari. On 28.8.1998, Prem Kumar was driver on the above said Tata Sumo. Prem Kumar while appearing as PW4 stated that he was driver on Tata Sumo No. HR-10-B-6464. Appellants came to hire Tata Sumo to shift ailing person from Civil Hospital, Sonepat, to Rohtak. When he along with appellants was going towards Civil Hospital, then on the way he was forced to abandon the vehicle with the help of pistol. By breaking the glass of front window, he raised raula. Police party present near Sector 14 came towards Tata Sumo. Appellants were arrested along with Tata Sumo.
Constable Ram Dass and Constable Sukhbir Singh stated that on 28.8.1998, they were on patrol duty. Tata Sumo was seen while coming from the side of Sector 14. They heard noise from Tata Sumo. Tata Sumo was signalled to stop by stationing jeep in front of Tata Sumo. Appellants were arrested along with Tata Sumo. One country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from Satbir. Pistol and cartridges were taken into police possession. After arresting the appellants, they along with case Crl.Appeal No. 203-SB of 2002 6 property were produced before SI Ajit Singh (PW7). To launch prosecution, sanction of District Magistrate, Sonepat, is on the file. Evidence on the file was scrutinized and rightly shows that offence punishable under Section 412 IPC was committed by the appellants. Satbir had also committed offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. No reason to differ with the opinion of trial Court. Impugned judgment on the point of conviction is upheld.
Occurrence is dated 28.8.1998. At that time, appellants were between 23 years to 27 years of age. They are the first offenders. Appellant Jagbir has undergone 6 months and 26 days, Kapoor has undergone 6 months and 29 days and Satbir has undergone 6 months and 3 days out of actual sentence. Ends of justice would be fully met if lenient view is taken.
Keeping in view of the facts of the case, I take lenient view. Instead of directing the appellants to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court, they are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (6 months and 26 days in case of Jagbir, 6 months and 29 days in case of Kapoor and 6 months and 3 days in case of Satbir) and to pay Rs.10,000/- more each as fine. Fine is to be deposited within two months before the trial Court.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merit is dismissed with modification on the point of sentence.
29.7.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE