Raj Kumar @ Raju and Others vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Appellants were convicted for an offence under Sections 365/392/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. Vide order dated 3.3.2009, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each u/s 365/34 IPC and under Sections 392/397/34, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. Hence, the present appeal.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge in para No. 1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

On 6.12.2007, complainant Mange Ram made complaint to the police to the following effect that during night intervening 5.12.2007 and 6.12.2007, he was driving his tractor trolley from Sugar Mills, Panipat towards his village Bursham. When he reached ahead of village Dahar his tractor trolley was stopped by a black car on the road. Four young men armed with pistols got out of the said car and robbed him of his tractor trolley. Thereafter, one of the culprits took the said tractor trolley towards Panipat whereas the remaining culprits abducted him in their car at pistol point. Above said culprits are alleged to have driven the said car towards Majri and kept him confined in the said car. Thereafter, said culprits dropped him from the said car near the Power House towards Didwari after robbing him of Rs. 1320/-.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the charge against appellant Baljeet and Raj Kumar @ Raju has been framed u/s 412/34 IPC and charge against appellant Naresh was framed under Sections 365/392/397/34 IPC along with co-accused Parveen @ Sonu and Rakesh @ Billu. However, at the time of leading evidence, the prosecution failed to establish its case. PW-3 deposed that he had been robbed by appellants Naresh, Baljeet and Raj Kumar @ Raju. He failed to identify the other two accused Parveen @ Sonu and Rakesh @ Billu. PW-4 deposed that on interrogation, appellant Raj Kumar @ Raju and Baljeet had suffered disclosure statements that accused Parveen @ Sonu had given them the robbed tractor trolley. Thereafter, appellants Raj Kumar @ Raju and Baljeet were interrogated and they got recovered the robbed tractor trolley. So far as appellant Naresh is concerned, one torch was recovered from him, whereas, one country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from accused Parveen @ Sonu. One car was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh @ Billu. Accused Parveen @ Sonu and Rakesh @ Billu were acquitted by the trial Court as the prosecution had failed to prove its case against them. Accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Baljeet were acquitted of an offence u/s 412 IPC but were convicted for an offence under Sections 365/392/397/34 IPC along with accused Naresh.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has also submitted that appellant Naresh was allegedly carrying a torch and no recovery has been effected from him.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted that although no charge had been framed against appellants Baljeet and Raj Kumar @ Raju under Sections 365/392/397/34 IPC yet they had been convicted under the said Sections. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid a denovo trial, learned Counsel has submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellants under Sections 365/392/397/34 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants be reduced to already undergone by them.

As per the custody certificates placed on record by the learned State counsel, appellant Raj Kumar @ Raju has undergone one year, two months and twenty six days of actual sentence; appellant Naresh has undergone two years, three months and three days of actual sentence and appellant Baljeet has undergone one year, three months and five days of actual sentence as on 5.4.2010.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants to already undergone by them.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellants under Sections 365/392/397/34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to already undergone by them subject to deposit of fine, as imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the appellants.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.