Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Ram And Another vs State Of Haryana on 2 November, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : November 02, 2010
Jeet Ram and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. M.S. Tewatia, Advocate.
Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
The appellants, alongwith Prithvi Singh and Radhey Shyam, were arraigned as accused in FIR No.631 dated 19.10.1997 under Sections 394 and 397 registered at Police Station, Dharuhera. During the trial of the case, Radhey Shyam accused died and, accordingly, proceeding against him were dropped. Vide judgment and order dated 17/25.11.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari acquitted Prithvi Singh accused of the charges against him. The appellants were, however, held guilty and convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998 - 2- According to the prosecution, on 16.10.1997, complainant Dev Kumar, who was working as a Co-ordinator in Sahara Finance Company, Rewari, after reporting to his office in the morning at 8.30 A.M., left for recovery of the amount and was able to collect Rs.19,000/- on that day. While he was returning from Dhani of Jal Singh, the four accused met him and enquired from him as to from where he was coming. He replied that he was coming from Dhani of Jal Singh after recovering the amount. The complainant knew the appellants and their co-accused Radhey Shyam, whereas the fourth accused, namely, Prithvi Singh was known to him by face and not by name. It was further alleged that at that point of time, accused Radhey Shyam took out a knife whereas the remaining three accused caught hold of the complainant. The appellants were armed with dandas and they used the same for beating him. Accused Radhey Shyam gave a knife blow hitting the complainant on his face. The fourth accused, namely, Prithvi Singh caught hold of him by his penis, whereafter all the accused snatched the cash amounting to Rs.19,000/- from the complainant, besides his wrist watch and gold ring. Even the five pass-books carried by the complainant were snatched. His clothes, i.e. pant, shirt, baniyan, under-wear and neck-tie were removed. The complainant became unconscious and after regaining the same, he went to his house where he disclosed about the incident to his father and brother. He was then taken to the hospital where he was medically examined. His statement Ex.PB was recorded by the police, on the basis of which, Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998 - 3- aforementioned FIR was registered.
During investigation of the case, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Recoveries were effected from all the accused, including the appellants. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where all the accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 Om Parkash, Patwari, PW2 Ram Kanwar, PW3 HC Ami Lal, PW4 complainant-Dev Kumar, PW5 Nanak Chand, PW6 Dr. N.K. Garg, PW7 Inspector Ram Kumar and PW8 Dr. V.K. Yadav.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants and their co-accused Prithvi Singh had stated that they were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. In defence, they examined DW1 Girwar Singh and DW2 Pehlad.
The trial Court believed the prosecution case against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above. However, Prithvi Singh accused was acquitted of the charges against him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence with their able assistance.
Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998 - 4- From the testimony of complainant-Dev Kumar, who was examined by the prosecution as PW4, it stands established that it were the appellants who had robbed him of cash and other articles on the evening of 16.10.1997. The appellants were armed with a danda each, which they used in giving him beatings. Accused Radhey Shyam, since deceased, who was armed with a knife had used the same in causing injuries on the face, particularly on the mouth and nose of the complainant. On account of the injuries suffered by him, the complainant had become unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he went to his house from where he was shifted to the hospital.
According to PW6 Dr. N.K. Garg, complainant Dev Kumar had suffered five injuries on his person, which he noticed at the time of his medico-legal examination on 17.10.1997. Three injuries were found to be the result of sharp edged weapon, fourth one was a lacerated wound, whereas the fifth one was only a complaint of pain and tenderness on both the testis of the complainant. As per the statement of PW8 Dr.V.K. Yadav, he had radiologically examined the complainant on 20.10.1997 and found fracture of nasal bone. In that regard he proved his report Ex.PL and on going through the said report, it is clear that it was injury No.4 which was lacerated in nature and the same resulted into fracture of nasal bone.
PW2 Ram Kanwar and PW5 Nanak Chand had corroborated the testimony of PW4 Dev Kumar that they had given an Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998 - 5- amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, to him for being credited to their accounts. In his further testimony, PW5 Nanak Chand deposed that all the accused had suffered disclosure statements after being arrested in the case and led the police to recover the various items which they had obtained after robbing the complainant. Even the clothes, which were got removed by the accused, were recovered at the instance of Jeet Ram-appellant. It is true that the entire looted amount of Rs.19,000/- had not been recovered by the police. A perusal of the disclosure statements made by the appellants would reveal that out of the looted amount, whatever had fallen to their share, had already been spent by them in purchasing household articles.
According to the defence, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. They had been residing in the neighbourhood of the complainant. However, no material had been brought by the defence on the record to show that the complainant was inimically disposed towards the appellants.
According to the prosecution, the appellants were armed with dandas. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the danda is a deadly weapon. Mere fact that accused Radhey Shyam, since deceased, had used a knife in inflicting injuries upon the complainant is no ground to sustain the charge under Section 397 IPC against the appellants. At the most, the appellants can be held guilty for the offence under Section 394 IPC.
Criminal Appeal S-1083-SB of 1998 - 6- It is true that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years and they have already remained behind the bars for an actual period of 1 year 3 months and 23 days each, as is apparent from the custody certificates produced by the learned State counsel but taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the remaining sentences of imprisonment of the appellants under Section 394 IPC cannot be set aside. At the most, the appellants can be granted some concession in the matter of their sentences of imprisonment.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 397 IPC is set aside. Their conviction under Section 394 IPC is maintained for which they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment now being imposed upon them for the offence under Section 394 IPC.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S. MANN )
November 02, 2010 JUDGE
satish