BIJENDER @ MANDAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 7th September 2009 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the order dated 20th March 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, convicting the Appellant-Bijender @ Mandar under Sections 392 and 397 IPC was affirmed. The High Court upheld the rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. However, it reduced the sentence from 10 to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly put, the Prosecution version is that on 14th April 1999, at around 11:00 AM, Bal Kishan (Complainant) was on his way to Delhi on his motorcycle along with his nephew, Sanjay, to purchase a plot of land and was carrying a sum of Rs. 46,000/­ for the said purpose. When the Complainant reached near the farm house of one Virender Bansal, on Jatheri Road, he was intercepted by a vehicle. The Appellant and one Manjeet (co­accused) stepped out of the said vehicle, armed with country made pistols and asked the Complainant to hand over the amount. The Complainant then handed over the key of the bike. The Accused took out the bag containing the money from the boot of the motorcycle and fled from the spot. Whereafter, the Complainant rushed towards the nearest Police Station on foot, leaving his nephew and the motorcycle behind, at the place of the incidence. To the good fortune of the Complainant, on his way to the Police Station, he met with ASI Rajinder Kumar (PW­14) and reported the occurrence to him. Consequently, an FIR was lodged and the investigation was set in motion.

(3.) Four accused persons, including the Appellant were arrested on the basis of secret information received by the police and they were charged under Sections 392, 397 and 120­B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Whilst the 5th co­accused (Vinod) could not be arrested and was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the other Accused including the Appellant abjured their guilt and pleaded 'not guilty '. In the eventual trial, 14 witnesses were examined by the Prosecution. No evidence was led by the Defence. The Prosecution presented its narrative before the Trial Court that the Accused persons, along with Vinod, conspired together to loot the Complainant, who, they were aware was carrying money for the purchase of a plot in Delhi. Whereas co­accused Mukesh and Subhash had provided the information, the Appellant, Manjeet and Vinod actually carried out the robbery.