Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in Sandeep @ Roba @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2024Matching Fragments
1. All three appeals, CRA-D-814-DB-2006, CRA-D-692-DB- 2006 and CRA-D-126-DB-2016 as referred above arising out of two separate judgments and orders of sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat pertaining to same FIR were taken up together with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants.
2. Appellants/convicts in CRA-D-814-DB-2006 and CRA-D- 692-DB-2006 namely Sandeep @ Roba @ Sonu s/o Hoshiar Singh and Sandeep s/o Angrej have filed their respective appeals against judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2006 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case bearing No.14 of 2005, title "State Vs. Mintu and others" vide which both Sandeep @ Roba @ Sonu s/o Hoshiar Singh and Sandeep s/o Angrej were sentenced as under :-
6. All accused were supplied complete set of copies of challan report as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate, Sonepat committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat for trial vide commitment order dated 23.02.2005 qua accused Mintu, Sandeep @ Roba @ Sonu s/o Hoshiar Singh and Sandeep s/o Angrej.
7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, after hearing arguments, framed charge-sheet against all the said accused. Accused Mintu, Sandeep @ Roba @ Sonu s/o Hoshiar Singh and Sandeep s/o Angrej were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to them in simple language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087993-DB CRA-D-814-DB-2006 (O&M) and other connected appeals
10. Accused Dhanna @ Dhanne was supplied complete set of copy of challan report as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate, Sonepat committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat for trial vide commitment order dated 01.08.2014 qua accused Dhanna @ Dhanne.
29. Prosecution has tried to build up enmity as a motive for the commission of offence on the basis of disclosure statements of the appellants/convicts which is not admissible. Complainant Ravinder in his statement given to the police Exhibit-PH claimed that Mintu, Anil and Dhanna @ Dhanne wanted his brother Sandeep s/o Duli Chand to join their company in the commission of illegal activities like loots etc. It is claimed that Sandeep s/o of Duli Chand the deceased victim did not want to join them and for this reason they nourished grudge against him and murdered his brother. Mintu one of the accused has tendered into evidence copy of challan report in FIR No.26 dated 01.02.2002 under Section 457, 380 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sonepat Exhibit-D1 in which Sandeep s/o Duli Chand is arrayed as one of the accused. There is another copy of challan report in FIR No.24 dated 30.01.2002 under Section 457, 380 of IPC, registered at Police Station City Sonepat Exhibit-D2 in which Sandeep s/o Duli Chand is again arrayed as accused. Aforesaid challan reports indicate that deceased 26 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087993-DB CRA-D-814-DB-2006 (O&M) and other connected appeals victim was already involved in other criminal cases. Therefore, the stand taken by the complainant in his statement Exhibit-PH is not substantiated to prove culpability of appellants in the commission of the offence.