BALLU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment dated January 16, 1988 rendered by the designated Court, Rohtak disposing of two cases, being Sessions Case No. 280 of 1986 and Arms Act Case No. 281 of 1986. By the impugned judgment the Designated Court convicted the three appellants before us under section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (two counts) and also convicted one of them, namely, Raj Kumar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of Terrorist and disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985.

(2.) Xx xx xx

(3.) The appellants abjured their guilt and contended' that they had been falsely implicated in the case owing to enmity. The appellant Raj Kumar's further contention was that he did not make any statement to the police and as such the question of recovery of pistol and cartridge at his instance did not arise.