Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal, which stood admitted and notice issued to the State.

The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 12.5.1998 at about 1.00 p.m., complainant Ramdev started for his village Kheri Khumar, District Jhajjar while driving Tata-709 bearing registration No. HR-46-A-1339, belonging to his brother Bhagwan Dev. Anoop Singh son of Risal was with him in the vehicle. At about 11.30 p.m., when they reached near Bapora bye-pass, then all of a sudden, three young persons came in front of their vehicle and got it stopped. One person, who was having country made pistol, asked Jitender in a loud voice to pull the driver out of the vehicle. Upon this, Jitender pulled the complainant out of the vehicle and told Kuldeep to hit him with a lathi on his head, if he raised any noise. He also told Sukhbir to shoot him, if he tried to run away. The person, who was having a pistol in his hand pointed the same towards the complainant and the remaining two persons removed Rs.3,200/-, which he had kept in the pocket of his pant by rolling them in a hanker-chief with his name Ramdev inscribed on it in blue thread. The search For Subsequent orders see CRM-29662-2013 2 of 7 of the vehicle was also conducted. The accused snatched one bag, which contained the registration certificate, insurance and permit of the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant and his companions were allowed to leave the spot with the vehicle. The accused were committing robbery upon the passers-by after getting their vehicles stopped.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence with their able assistance, this Court finds that in order to prove the charge under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, the prosecution examined PW7 Anoop Singh as PW7, who had been working as Conductor (Cleaner) with complainant Ram Dev on the date and time of the occurrence whereas complainant Ramdev was examined as PW8. Similarly, Satbir son of Risal Singh and Om Parkash son of Subh Ram, who, according to the prosecution were also robbed by the appellants on and around the same time and at the same place were examined as PW9 and PW11, respectively. All of them did state that they were robbed of different amounts of money yet none of them deposed that it were the appellants, who had snatched money from them, rather they testified that the accused present in the Court were not the persons, who had robbed and For Subsequent orders see CRM-29662-2013 4 of 7 snatched money from them. Apart from that, the prosecution also examined Joginder son of Ishwar Singh as PW10, who testified that on 13.5.1998, he was coming from Hisar towards Dadri via Bapora and driving trailer No. HR-46-9685 and when he reached near Bapora bye-pass, another trailer was already parked on katcha portion of the road. Three persons came on the road and tried to stop his trailer. He stopped his vehicle. Out of the three persons, two got the window of his trailer opened whereas the third asked Jitender to pull him down from the trailer. He also deposed that he did not know the names of all the accused but he was able to identify two of them, who were present in the Court. Those two were Jitender and Sukhbir. He also testified that they were the same persons, who had opened the window of his trailer. He, however, could not identify the third person. He also deposed that Jitender was holding a knife whereas Sukhbir had a lathi. The third person asked Jitender and Sukhbir that money be snatched from him and if he was not ready to part with the money, then he be shot at. He further deposed that it was Jitender accused, who pulled him down from the trailer and snatched Rs.3,600/- from his pocket. He reported the matter to the police.