RAMEHAR ALIAS BITTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine shall dispose of three appeals, namely, CRA Nos. 361-SB, 420-SB and 402-SB of 2001, having arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 17.03.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), whereby the accused (herein appellants), have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 IPC. Furthermore, appellants, namely, Navin, Sunil, Ramehar and Rmed have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 307 IPC. Appellant, Virender Singh, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. However, all the substances sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in hand, as emanating from the record, are that on 22.12.1997, HC Ranbir Singh, received information regarding admission of Anil Kumar son of Bhagwan Sarup in PGI Rohtak whereupon, he along with other police officials, rushed to the hospital and sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured-Anil Kumar to make statement. However, Anil Kumar was declared unfit to make the statement by the doctor and, therefore, statement of his brother, Sanjiv Kumar, was recorded. It was alleged that on 21.12.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., he along with his brother, Anil Kumar (injured), and one Dharmender, was going near the house bearing No. 188, Sector 15, Sonepat, where they were encircled by some young persons. One of the accused asked them as to who was Anil Kumar among them. When Anil Kumar revealed his identity, he was inflicted knife blows in the abdomen and hip by one of the accused. Thereafter, all the accused managed to escape from the place of occurrence.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid statement, a case under Section 324 IPC was registered against the accused. However, on 24.12.1997, when injured-Anil Kumar was declared fit to make statement, he stated before HC Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer, that on 21.12.1997, he along with his brother, namely, Sanjiv Kumar, and one Dharmender, had been apprehended by five persons, namely, Virender Singh, Navin, Suneel, Ramehar and Umed Singh, who were known to him prior to the occurrence also. All the five accused, in furtherance of their common intention came forward and asked as to who was Anil Kumar among them and when the complainant revealed his identity, Virender, accused, exhorted his coaccused to teach him a lesson as Anil Kumar had beaten his brother Narender. Thereafter, Navin caught hold of him from his collar and Umed inflicted fist blows on his person. Accused Suneel hugged him and accused Virender inflected knife blow in his abdomen as well as towards the left side of the hip. Resultantly, the injured-complainant fell down while his brother Sanjiv Kumar tried to rescue him from the spot while raising raula. Accused Ramehar also kicked him and thereafter all of them fled away from the place of occurrence.