BADRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the judgment passed by the Courts below convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on the basis of a complaint Ex. P/C dated 17.10.1982, moved by Bharat Singh complainant in the Police Station, formal FIR Ex. P/C-I was recorded under Sections 285 and 506 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. In the said complaint, it was alleged by Bharat Singh complainant that on 16.10.1982 at about 8.00 PM when he was taking dinner, he heard a lalkara exhorting him to come out of his house so that he could be taught a lesson for giving evidence against Rullia in a murder case and at the same time he heard shots of gun being fired upon which he went up- stairs and saw in the electric light accused Om Parkash (deceased) armed with .12 bore pistol, accused Jagdish armed with .12 bore gun, and accused Mani Ram also armed with .12 bore pistol. It was alleged that at that time accused Om Parkash stated that he would rest only after killing him (Bharat Singh) and thereafter they all fired from their respective fire arms. It was alleged that out of fear, he (Bharat Singh) did not come out of his house. In the meanwhile, all the accused went away from the spot in their Jeep. It was alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by Giani Ram and Hanuman and that on the next morning he had presented the complaint in the Police Station. After registration of the FIR, the case was investigated by the Police. After completion of investigation, challan was filed by the police only against Badri, Jagdish and Ram Partap accused under Sections 285 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, as in the meanwhile Om Parkash accused had been murdered on 11.1.1985, before the submission of challan and his name was struck off from the list of accused. Subsequently, accused Mani Ram was also summoned by the Court vide order dated 19.5.1986, while accused Ram Partap was acquitted on 19.5.1986 for want of evidence. Accused Badri, Jagdish and Ram Partap were charged under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Later on accused Mani Ram was also charged under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, while accused Ram Partap had been acquitted while summoning Mani Ram as an accused in this case. After the prosecution had led its evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied the prosecution allegations against them but did not produce any evidence in their defence. The learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1987 convicted all the three accused petitioners under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 months each. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-petitioners by the learned Magistrate were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal vide judgment dated 7.9.1987. Aggrieved against these judgments of the Courts below, the accused petitioners filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) THE first point taken on behalf of the accused-petitioners in the grounds of revision is that the alleged occurrence had taken place at night time and possibility of false implication could not be ruled out especially when the prosecution had not challaned Mani Ram while Ram Partap was found innocent and was acquitted at the initial stage and that the evidence of Bharat Singh complainant and Giani Ram is not trustworthy. However, I find no merit in this point taken on behalf of the accused-petitioners. The Court is required to consider the substantive evidence led in the case. After considering the statements of PW-2 Giani Ram, PW-3 Bharat Singh complainant, produced by the prosecution, both the Courts below found it as a fact that the occurrence had taken place in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses and there was no reason to discard the testimony of these witnesses about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Considering that the accused and the witnesses are known to each other, it could not be said to be a case of mistaken identity, especially when electric light was there at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. There is absolutely nothing on record which may be sufficient to discard the testimony of PW-2 Giani Ram and PW-3 Bharat Singh about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. As referred to above, both the Courts below had accepted the prosecution version about the manner in which the occurrence had taken place.