Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh @ Premi vs State Of Haryana on 23 July, 2013
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision : July 23, 2013
...
Prem Singh @ Premi
................Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. S.P. Chahar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Sh. Amit Kaushik, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
This is an appeal directed by one of the accused - appellant Prem Singh @ Premi, against the judgment dated 24.11.2001 and order dated 27.11.2001 passed by Sh. Ragvinder Singh Bahmani, Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak, vide which the accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 394 and 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:-
Chugh Banita 2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -2-
u/s 394 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. u/s 397 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, SHO Police Station Meham sent Prem Singh @ Premi - appellant and Mahipal to stand trial under Sections 394, 397 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, in respect of FIR No. 236 dated 15.10.1999.
The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Bhim Singh - complainant, who had stated that on 14.10.1999, at about 8.45 P.M. he was driving jeep No. HR -20-D-4630 of his son- in-law Narinder Kumar from Hansi to Hisar. The complainant after taking the passengers was on the way to Rohtak. He dropped a passenger at Meham while the other two young passengers remained seated in the jeep as they wanted to go to Rohtak. When he reached near village Kharkara at about 10.30 P.M. after crossing the canal, they asked him to stop the jeep and started taking money from his pocket. The complainant objected and thereafter one of them told, Sanjay fire a shot to him and accordingly, he fired a shot with his pistol at him, but he was saved. Then the second boy fired a shot from his pistol which caused injury on the palm of his left hand. They snatched his jeep from him and dragged him out. They also removed Chugh Banita 2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -3- money from the front pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The said boys were in the age group of 20-22 years and of wheatish colour. They escaped in the jeep towards Rohtak. The complainant has given the Chasis/Engine number of the jeep as 258481 DV and the model as 1997. The complainant reached near All India Radio Station, Madina on a tractor where PCR met him. He informed about the incident and went to PGI MS, Rohtak, for his treatment. On the basis of his statement, the abovesaid FIR was registered on 15.10.1999. During investigation in respect of FIR No. 20 dated 1.2.2000 under Sections 399/402 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Beri, Prem Singh @ Premi and Mahipal were arrested. They made their respective disclosure statement on 2.2.2000 regarding the present occurrence and got the recoveries effected. They were formally arrested in this case on 7.2.2000. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellant Prem Singh @ Premi and Mahipal. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, after supplying copies of the documents under the rules.
Charge under Sections 394, 397 IPC was framed against the appellant and Mahipal, whereas charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against Mahipal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Rulia Ram, Naib Tehsildar, PW-2 Sudarshan, Assistant Superintendent District Jail, PW-3 Krishan Kumar, Record Keeper, PGI MS, PW-4 Bhim Singh - complainant, PW-5 ASI Chugh Banita 2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -4- Samunder Singh, PW-6 Ranbir Singh ASI, PW-7 Constable Dilbagh Singh, PW-8 Dr. Virender Nagpal, M.O. General Hospital, Kaithal, PW-9 Het Ram Inspect, PW-10 Sri Niwas, Reader to District Magistrate, PW-11 Bharat Singh Patwari Halka, Kharkara, PW-12 ASI Tej Singh, PW-13 Dr. Sunil Malik, PW-14 HC Harpal Singh, PW-15 Kishan Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, PW-16 Inder Singh, Inspector, PW-17 Same Ram HC, PW-18 Sanjay Kumar, Constable and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence.
The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication.
The accused were called upon to lead their defence, but they had not chosen to lead the defence.
Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, convicted the appellant and Mahipal under Sections 394, 397 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.
Mahipal was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24/27.11.2001 passed by Sh. Ragvinder Singh Bahmani, Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak, accused appellant Prem Singh @ Premi has preferred the present appeal.
Chugh Banita2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -5-
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that name of the appellant does not figure in the FIR. The identification of the accused in the Court for the first time cannot be accepted. The recoveries have been planted after more than three months.
I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. There is no enmity on the part of the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused-appellant and Mahipal co-accused. The appellant has refused to join the test identification parade as stated by PW-1 Rulia Ram, Naib Tehsildar. The accused were already in custody and as such could not be identified earlier.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out. The weapon of offence has been recovered from the co-accused Mahipal. Only Mahipal has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 2 years, 6 months and 22 days. So, prayer has been made for acquittal of the accused under Section 397 IPC and further prayer has been made that in respect of offence under Section 394 IPC the appellant has already undergone sufficient period of incarceration. So, the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further contended that appellant cannot be held to be vicariously liable in respect of action of co-accused Mahipal for attracting offence under Section 397 IPC although according to the prosecution, the appellant fired from the gun but no recovery of weapon is there. To support his Chugh Banita 2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -6- contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authorities reported as Paramjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 239 and Suresh @ Pauvva and others vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2012 (9) AD (Delhi) 145.
I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The prosecution story is crystal clear in which it is mentioned that appellant has also fired a shot which caused injuries. So, ingredients of offence under Section 397 IPC are also made out against the appellant. Mere fact that there is no recovery of weapon, does not disprove the case of the prosecution in respect of offence under Section 397 IPC. In order to properly appreciate this argument, Section 397 IPC is reproduced as under:-
"397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.- If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."
So, from the bare perusal of the above said provision of law, it is revealed that when the offender uses a deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the offence is punishable with Section 397 IPC. The appellant has also used the .32 bore gun in the occurrence to commit the actual robbery and has actually fired, which caused injury. So far as the Chugh Banita 2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -7- authority in Paramjeet Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, that authority is distinguishable as in that case there was no allegation of actually causing injuries by the appellant, who has been acquitted under Section 397 IPC. However, in that case conviction of the appellant under Section 394 IPC and his sentence of 4 years was maintained.
In Suresh @ Pauvva's case (Supra), also the conviction of the appellant under Section 392, 394, 34 IPC was up held. The said authority in respect of offence under Section 397 IPC is also distinguishable as no grievous injury or attempt to cause injury was alleged against the appellant who has been acquitted under Section 397 IPC. In the present case, there are allegations of causing fire arm injury by the appellant alongwith non-appellant Mahipal.
Learned counsel for he appellant has further submitted that there is discrepancy regarding lodging of the FIR and as such the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission also. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur due to passage of time. The occurrence has taken place on 14.10.1999 and the witnesses were examined in the year 2001 i.e. more than one year.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the minimum sentence of 7 years, as prescribed under Section 397 IPC, has been awarded to the appellant. No ground for reduction in sentence is made out.
Chugh Banita2013.08.12 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. A. No. 389 SB of 2002 -8-
No other point has been urged before me.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri )
July 23, 2013 Judge
chugh
Chugh Banita
2013.08.12 14:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document