MUNESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above three appeals are preferred against the impugned judgment dated 15th November, 2003 in Sessions Case No. 35/01, FIR No. 16/98, P.S. Narela, whereby appellant Vijay Kumar has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402/ 411 IPC & Section 25 of the Arms Act, appellant Munesh @ Munna has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402 IPC & Section 25 of the Arms Act and appellants Sumer @ Malhotra and Naresh Kumar have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence dated 21st November, 2003.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 13th January, 1998 at around 6.30 p.m., SI Munshi Ram (PW9) received a secret information in the police station that some boys are gathering in the Cremation Ground, Saboli Narela Road to plan a dacoity. Those boys, as per the informer, were having unlicensed arms as well as a stolen Maruti Car. SI Munshi Ram organized a raiding party by joining the police officials and left the police station after informing the SHO. On the way to Cremation Ground, SI Munshi Ram requested 10/15 passersby to join the raiding party but they all refused. The raiding party reached Cremation Ground, Saboli Narela Road at about 07.00 p.m. SI Munshi Ram instructed the members of raiding party to take suitable positions and told them that after hearing the conversation of those persons, he would give a signal by lighting a matchstick and on the receipt of signal, they should apprehend those persons. Thereafter, on the pointing of the informer, SI Munshi Ram went near the boundary wall of the Cremation Ground near the gate to overhear the conversation of persons sitting within the premises of Cremation Ground. There was a Maruti Car No. DAQ-2359 parked outside the Cremation Ground. It is alleged that those persons were planning a dacoity and their boss seemed to be the appellant Vijay. They were planning that they would go in Vijay's Car to the petrol pump at GTK Road and would loot the cash. Vijay explained the plan that accused Munesh, Naresh, Sumer & Anupam would go inside the room of the petrol pump and he would stand outside with pistol to prevent anyone from entering the room. He also told Munesh, who was having a knife and accused Naresh and Sumer, who were having iron rods to ensure that nobody was permitted to come outside the room and if anybody tries to come out of the room he should be attacked. Anoop was directed to take possession of the money kept in the room. SI Munshi Ram gave signal to the raiding party by lighting the matchstick and on this, members of the raiding party rushed to the spot and apprehended all five of them. On search, Vijay was found in possession of the country made pistol and Munesh was found in possession of 'Churi'. Other accused persons were found in possession of iron rods. The weapons recovered from their possession were converted into sealed packets after preparing the sketches and taken into possession. Vijay Kumar, on interrogation, stated that he had purchased the Maruti Car parked outside for 15,000/- from one Dinesh. A disclosure memo in this regard Ex.PW4/H was prepared. Car was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A..SI Munshi Ram prepared 'rukka' Ex.PW2/A at the spot and sent it to the police station through Contable Rajpal Singh for the registration of the case. On the basis of said 'rukka', FIR Ex.PW2/ B was registered and investigation was entrusted to SI Munshi Ram, the Investigating Officer. SI Munshi Ram arrested the accused persons and conducted their personal search vide respective memos Exs. PW4/G1 to 4/G5. Investigation revealed that Maruti Car No. DL-1CE-4420 was stolen property belonging to PW3 Mahavir Prasad. On completion of investigation, the appellants and their coaccused were sent for trial.

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402 IPC. He also charged the accused Munesh for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and accused Vijay for the offences punishable under Section 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.