HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-4-1978 of the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by means of which each of the appellants Harnam Singh and Sarnam Singh has been convicted and sentenced to seven years, R. I. under Section 394/397, I.P.C. and each of the appellants Khanji and Jhabbu has been convicted and sentenced to four years' R. I. under Section 394, I.P.C. The appellants Harnam Singh and Sarnam Singh are real brothers and are residents of village Mathana, P.S. Jaitipur, district Shahjahanpur. The remaining two appellants Khanji and Jhabbu have been stated to be their servants.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd Oct., 1974, at about sunset these appellants robbed one Chet Ram of village Dhirpur, P.S. Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur at a place about one and a half furlongs away from his village while he was returning from Gulria Bazar. Harnam Singh was armed with a gun; Saran Singh was armed with a tamancha and the remaining two appellants had lathis. When Chet Ram reached that place., Harnam Singh aimed his gun and asked him to part with every thing with him. Chet Ram however ran away. He had hardly gone about 10 to 12 paces when Harnam Singh fired from his gun. Chet Ram fell down after receiving injuries when Jhabbu and Khanji gave him lathi blows. On his alarm Mukut Singh, Chaturi and Virendra Singh reached there and raised an alarm. By that time Harnam Singh took out Rs. 20/from his pocket and Khanji snatched his Jhola containing one new terricot dhoti, one piece of blouse cloth, vegetables and bananas and ran away. Chet Ram instead of going to the police station in the night, came to nis house on account of fear. He went to the police station the next morning where he lodged the report at 11-45 A. M. Sub-Inspector Balram Singh started investigation of this case but it was concluded by Sub-Inspector Ami Chand Singh who submitted a final report before the judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur who, instead of accepting the same, took cognizance of this case against the appellants.

(3.) The appellants have denied the prosecution case. They have stated to have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity arising out of party bandi in the village.