CHATPAL ALIAS SATPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are being disposed of together by a common judgment inasmuch as they arise out of the same FIR and are directed against the common judgment dated 10.07.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 86/1996. The three appellants, namely, Chet Ram, Chat Pal @ Sat Pal and Narain along with Chakori Lal were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with 120B, 39 read with 120B IPC. However, the Trial Court acquitted Chakori Lal of all charges. We may also point out that when the charge-sheet was filed, one Lakhan Pal was also named as an accused but he passed away before the framing of charges. The appellant Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal were also charged in the alternative under Sections 302 read with 34, 392 read with 34 and 394 IPC.

(2.) BY virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Chet Ram, Narain and Chat Pal @ Satpal have been convicted for having committed the offences under Sections 302 read with 34,392 read with 34 and 394 IPC. All the three accused were awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 392 read with 34 IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the appellants were also required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In respect of the offence under Section 394/34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as were liable to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default whereof, they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. With regard to the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C was to be given to the appellants and their sentences were to run concurrently.

(3.) THE same is the case with the appellant Narain. Exhibit PW21/G, which is a seizure memo, indicates that Narain was wearing the HMT watch on his left wrist, but Exhibit PW21/A, which is the personal search memo, does not mention any watch and only a sum of Rs. 20/- is said to have been found on the person of the appellant Narain. Here again, the witnesses of the seizure memo and the personal search memo are the same, namely, SI Ram Kanwar and HC Surender Singh. Similarly, in the case of the appellant Chet Ram, we find that the seizure memo Exhibit PW22/E mentions a gold ring with the words Darshan Lal engraved on it as well as a rexine purse containing Rs. 550/-. It is also mentioned in the seizure memo that the gold ring was worn by Chet Ram on the ring finger of his left hand. However, Exhibit PW22/A, which is the personal search memo of the same date, that is, 30.07.1990, has only a reference to a sum of Rs. 17/- in cash plus one bus ticket worth Rs. 20/- and one dagger. It is, therefore, clear that the personal search memo is at complete variance with the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram also as in the case of Chat Pal and Narain. THE witnesses to the seizure memo in the case of Chet Ram as also the personal search memo were also the same, namely, SI Manohar Lal and SI Ram Kanwar.