GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19 th April, 1996 Kulbeer Singh (PW4) had gone to Darya Ganj at about 6.00 P.M. to purchase medicines for his uncle who was admitted in G.B. Pant Hospital. Two persons i.e. the appellant and his deceased accomplice accosted him in the galli near Dena Bank . One of these persons put a knife on his stomach and told him not to shout, whose name he came to know later as Gurcharan Singh, and his accomplice Rama took out his purse from the pocket of his shirt. He threatened Kulbeer Singh that in case he shouts the consequences will not be good. Two police officers who were on the patrolling duty reached there and the Appellant along with his co-accused Rama were caught on the spot. The knife was recovered from the right hand of the Appellant Gurcharan Singh.

(2.) On the basis of the statement of the complainant Kulbeer Singh, FIR No. 178/1996 under Section 392 IPC and another FIR bearing No. 179/1996 under Section 27 Arms Act, PS Darya Ganj were got registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant and his co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 IPC. The co-accused Rama died during the trial and after adducing evidence and recording the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant Gurcharan was convicted for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act in the two FIRs. The Appellant was awarded a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of '1000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 27 of the Arms Act. This judgment of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that since the co-accused Rama expired, the witness has leveled entire allegation against the Appellant. On the said date when the incident took place, the Appellant was plying his TSR and was waiting for the customers when Rama, who used to run a tea stall and knew the Appellant, was called by the police. Thereafter the Appellant was also called and falsely implicated in the present case.