STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ZILE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Zile Singh son of Hasti Ram, Ram Kumar son of Phool Singh and Nahar Singh son of Khem Chand were named as accused in case FIR No.217 dated 15.12.1982, registered at Police Station Jhajjar, under Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, 467 read with Section 120-B IPC, 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and 471 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jhajjar convicted them for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC as they were sentenced as under:- Under Section 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years to each one of the accused with a further order to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each or in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. Under Section 467 IPC Each one to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 468 IPC Each one to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. Under Section 471 IPC Each one to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. It was further ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently."

(2.) Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence Zile Singh, Ram Kumar and Nahar Singh filed separate appeals in the Sessions Court, Rohtak. The three appeals filed by the accused were decided by a common judgment, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who after minutely discussing the evidence, recorded their acquittal.

(3.) State of Haryana was not satisfied with the acquittal and had filed present appeal against acquittal in the year 1997. Shri K.S. Malik, Advocate has stated that Zile Singh accused-respondent during the pendency of the appeal has expired, therefore, the said appeal qua him would abate. This Court in normal course would have asked for the report from the concerned quarters but after evaluating and assessing the evidence this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the present appeal against acquittal, therefore, this exercise is not being undertaken.