Amrik Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Appellants had faced the trial for an offence under Sections 392/ 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian

Penal Code, 1860 for short), 1860 in FIR No. 394 dated 8.9.19991 registered at Police Station City Jind. Appellant Mewa Singh also faced the

trial for an offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act for short).

The trial Court vide judgment dated 2.9.2002 convicted the Appellants for an offence under Sections 392, 328/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860

and Section 25 of the Act. Vide order dated 3.9.2002, Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a

fine of Rs. 500/- each for an offence u/s 392 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for an offence u/s 328/ 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant Mewa Singh was also sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- u/s 25 of the Act. All the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

Hence, the present appeal by the Appellants.

None has appeared on behalf of the Appellants.

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the Appellants.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. The Appellants had been falsely involved

in this case.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Appellant Amrik Singh has already undergone the sentence.

Appellant Mewa Singh has undergone three years, one month and eighteen days of actual sentence. The prosecution had been successful in

establishing its case.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.9.1999, the complainant was driving car No. DL-4C-6211, which had been hired by three persons

from Kaithal to Jind. The said persons had paid Rs. 300/- towards petrol. At about 11.30 a.m., they reached the Grain Market, Jind and

complainant was asked to stop the car on the pretext that the accused wanted to meet someone. The complainant remained sitting in the car and

the passengers travelling in the car returned back. After 2-3 hours, the passengers again asked the complainant to return back to the Grain Market,

Jind and they entered a juice shop. After some time, accused Mewa Singh gave a glass of lassi to the complainant and took one glass of lassi

himself. Thereafter, the other accused also returned back. When they reached near telephone exchange, Jind, accused Mewa Singh took out a

knife and they threw the complainant out of the car and sped away in the car. The complainant became un-conscious and regained consciousness

in the Civil Hospital where his statement was recorded by the police and prosecution case was set in motion.

Accused Chhajju Ram was declared a proclaimed offender.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Jai Pal as PW-3. The said witness deposed as per the prosecution story. PW-4

Baljit Singh deposed that he was the owner of the car in question and had employed Jai Pal as a driver. He was using the car as a taxi. On

7.9.1999, three persons had hired his car for Rs. 500/- for Jind. In the evening when the car did not return back, he started searching for the car.

Driver Jai Pal told him that the person, who had hired the car, had taken away the same. On 8.9.1999, while he was standing at Polo Chowk

along with Jai Pal and a policy party, the car was coming from Jind City side. The car was stopped. Accused Mewa Singh was driving the car and

the other two accused were also sitting in the car and they were arrested. Out of the said three persons only two were present in the court. The

Appellants, when they were examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, took up the plea that they were innocent and had been falsely

involved in the case. The complainant and PW-4 Baljit Singh had No. enmity against the Appellants to have falsely involved them in this case. The

testimony of the said witnesses could not be shaken during their cross-examination. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.