YUDHVIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Anup Singh, a young wrestler, was murdered around noon on 19/12/1985. Two of his associates were also injured in the episode. Police challenged the four appellants before us for the murder of anup Singh and for causing hurt to his associates. As the weapon used was a knife and as the place of incident was within the notified area under the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA" act for short) , the case was tried by a designated Court constituted under Section 9 of the TADA'act. All the four appellants were convicted - first appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining appellant under Section 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining appellants under those offences with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal code. Each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life under the first count and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under the second count. The first appellant was further charged with Section 25 of the Arms act 1959 read with Section 6 of the TADA act but he was acquitted of that offence. Appellants have preferred this appeal under section 19 of the TADA Act.

(2.) Prosecution story: On the previous day of murder of Anup Singh, an encounter took place between him and first appellant yudhvir. On this account, first appellant was harbouring a ruse towards the deceased. On the occurrence day, deceased Anup Singh and his associates (Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 2) travelled in a bus in which the four appellants also travelled and they all alighted at Rohtak bus stand. First appellant-Yudhvir told his associates that he would 'take revenge on the deceased for the previous day's incident. He then whipped out a knife -from his pocket and aimed a blow at the deceased but it was warded off by him. Fourth appellant- Rajinder, who reached there in the meantime, dealt a blow on the deceased with a hockey stick. At that stage, second appellant (Rambir) and third appellant (Bijender caught hold of the deceased by his hands from both sides. First appellant then inflicted a stab injury on the chest of the deceased. When Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 2 made a bid to rescue him, first appellant attacked them also with the knife and consequently, they too sustained injuries. By then, other people rushed up to the rescue of the victims and the assailants thereupon took to their heels. All the injured were taken to the medical College Hospital Rohtak but Anup singh succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

(3.) First information regarding the incident was the statement of Public Witness 1 recorded by the police. All the four appellants were arrested on different dates, and on the strength of the information elicited from the first appellant a knife was recovered by the police. After completing the investigation, final report was laid against all of them.