Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 7]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Pal Son Of Charan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 January, 2010

Author: A.N.Jindal

Bench: A.N.Jindal

Criminal Appeal No.1151-SB of 2002

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                        Criminal Appeal No.1151-SB of 2002
                        Date of Decision 15.01.2010


Raj Pal son of Charan Singh
                                                 ...... Appellant(s)
                        VERSUS
State of Haryana.                                ...... Respondent(s)

                        Criminal Appeal No.1078-SB of 2002
Vikram
                                                 ...... Appellant(s)
                        VERSUS
State of Haryana.                                ...... Respondent(s)

                        Criminal Appeal No.1277-SB of 2002

Vikas
                                                 ...... Appellant(s)
                        VERSUS
State of Haryana.                                ...... Respondent(s)


                        Criminal Appeal No.1061-SB of 2002
Joginder Singh
                                                 ...... Appellant(s)
                        VERSUS
State of Haryana.                                ...... Respondent(s)

                        Criminal Appeal No.1250-SB of 2002

Avinash
                                                        ...... Appellant(s)
                        VERSUS
State of Haryana.                                ...... Respondent(s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:    Mr.J.S.Virk, Advocate, for the appellants
            Vikas, Vikram and Avinash.

            None for the appellant Raj Pal and Joginder Singh.

            Mr.Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana,
            for the respondent-State of Haryana.

                        *****

Criminal Appeal No.1151-SB of 2002 A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

Aforesaid five appeals Nos.1151, 1078, 1277 , 1061 and 1250 of 2002 have been preferred by the appellants-accused namely Raj Pal, Vikram, Vikas, Joginder Singh and Avinash (herein referred as 'the appellants'), against the judgment dated 05.06.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Karnal, convicting all the appellants under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code and accused Vikram was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing them as under:
under Section 399 I.P.C R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 402 I.P.C. R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 25 of the Arms R.I. for a period of three Act to accused Vikram only years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
The case set up by the prosecution is that all the accused were found conspiring below the culvert/bridge of ganda nala (drain), Sector 4, karnal, for committing the dacoity at Shiv Filling Station, G.T.Road, Karnal. When actually they were in the process of preparation, were apprehended except Joginder Singh, who had fled away from the spot due to darkness. On search of Vikram, Rajpal, Vikas, Avinash and pardeep (since deceased) recoveries of weapons were made. 314 bore pistol alongwith one live cartridge was recovered from the appellant Vikram. The knives were recovered from accused Pardeep and Avinash and one iron rod each was recovered from accused Vikas and Raj Pal and they all were measured and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC/1.
On the strength of the aforesaid evidence, they were convicted Criminal Appeal No.1151-SB of 2002 and sentenced accordingly.
At the very outset, no argument has been advanced on the point of conviction. Even otherwise, the prosecution case stands fully proved from the testimony of two witnesses namely PW3 Sub-Inspector Baljit Singh and PW4 Head Constable Rajbir Singh. They have withstood the test of cross-examination. No such serious contradiction or infirmity could be found so as to club them as unreliable witnesses. As such, the findings of conviction returned by the trial Court remain undisturbed.
Now coming to the quantum of sentence, though weapons were recovered from the appellants but none of them is stated to have used the same for commission of crime. Under these circumstances, lenient view could be taken in the present case.
Resultantly, these appeals are dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without any alteration in the sentence of fine.
Copy of this order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, for compliance.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.01.2010 mamta-II