AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant from jail under Section 19 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA). It appears that initially the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and the co-accused Raj Pal under S. 394, 392 and 397 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of TADA Act. But at the trial the accused stood charged for offences under S. 392, 397 and 394 Indian Penal Code before the designated court, Rohtak at Sonepat.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 12/4/1990 when Public Witness 7, Suresh being accompanied by his brother Public Witness 8, Subhash was going on a scooter to village Gadwal from Gonana, both the said accused suddenly appeared armed with pistol and they made an attempt to stop the scooter, but his brother Subhash did not allow them to do so. The accused however caught hold of the scooter by its handle and pointed the pistol on the back of Suresh urging him to hand over whatever valuable was in his possession. Out of fear, Suresh handed over a purse containing Rs. 1,775. 00 and his wrist-watch and the wrist-watch of his brother Subhash was also removed by the other accused Raj pal forcibly. Thereafter, an attempt was made to snatch the scooter. Public Witness 7, Suresh, then picked up an empty drum of milk and hit the accused Ajit with such drum. The accused Ajit thereafter opened fire from the pistol at Suresh which hit the left hand of Suresh and the thumb and first finger of the left hand of Suresh were injured. Suresh and Ajit grappled with each other. At that stage, the accused Ajit inflicted a tooth bite on the left arm of Suresh and challenged both the brothers by firing the pistol but suresh and Subhash could escape. On the next day, an FIR was lodged with the Police Station Baroda in the district Rohtak.

(3.) According to the prosecution case, both the accused were arrested on 16/5/1990 and at the instance of the accused, the wrist-watches snatched from PWs 7 and 8 were recovered on 18/5/1990 which are stated to have been buried in a garden. It is also the prosecution case that both the accused did not agree to attend the test identification parade and as such test identification parade was not held. Considering the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Designated court convicted both the accused for offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 394 indian Penal Code and passed a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment against both the accused and also a fine of Rs. 250. 00 under Section 394 in default of makingpayment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the said accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code.