JAGDISH RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The appellant along with one Raj Singh were convicted under Ss. 307, 353/34 and S. 186/34 I.P.C. and also under S. 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under S. 307 I.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under S. 353 I.P.C. They were further sentenced to 2 months' rigorous imprisonment under S. 186 and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under S. 27 of the Arms Act, and the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant and his accomplice are that on receipt of a secret information Inspector Harbans Singh, PW-5 while he was on patrol duty along with the other prosecution witnesses and was near Lokesh Cinema he was informed that the appellant and one Niranjan Dacoits would be coming from Rohtak side accompanied by other members of their gang and enter Delhi. Consequently the alleged raid was organised and an ambush laid near Pulia No. 22/1 by the side of Mundka Canal. At about 8.45 P.M. on 1-1-1985 they received a signal as a result of which the police van was brought to the middle of the road to block the passage. Immediately thereafter they noticed Raj Rathi on a motor cycle accompanied by Jagdish and one more companion who managed to escape. One Niranjan also came along with persons on another motor cycle. Both motor cycles stopped at a distance of 15 feet from the police vehicle. It is also alleged that Raj Rathi thereafter fired at Inspector Harbans Singh from his revolver, marked Ex.P-1 and Jagdish appellant also fired at the police party from his country made pistol Ex.P-4. The prosecution story further goes to state that both of them were over-powered and the fire arms seized from them. The fire arm Ex. P-1 seized from Raj Rathi was found to be containing one spent and three live cartridges in its chamber and similarly the fire arm seized from Jagdish also yielded one spent and three live cartridges. Thereafter the seizure of these revolvers was made on the spot and a case registered.

(3.) The stand of the appellant as also his alleged accomplice at trial is that of the denial. According to them, they had been in fact, arrested and taken into custody days before the alleged date of incident.