DINU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are seeking to challenge the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by which the appeal filed against the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh was dismissed.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners was registered on a letter sent by Jag Mohan, Range Forest Officer indicating that on 6.1.1999, the employees of the Forest Department, namely, Dharambir, Forest Guard, Abdul Wahid, Dharmendera and Prem Singh had found the petitioners and their family members cutting Shisham trees with axes on Nuh-Tauru road near village Palla. When Maman Singh, Kanwal Singh and Hari Ram, Forest Duroga had also reached the spot and they asked the reason of cutting of Shisham trees, the petitioners attacked the forest officials with axes and lathis and caused injuries to Abdul, Dharambir and Dharmendera. On the basis of this letter, an F.I.R. under Sections 353, 332 and 379 IPC was registered against Tofiq, Hassam, Deena, Sabbu and Sahun and on completion of the investigation the challan was put in Court against all of them. When the Court, on going through the papers sent up with the challan framed a charge-sheet under Sections 332, 353, 379 IPC against all the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution case and examined Farrukh and Juber in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court fixed the criminal liability in the case on the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 332 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 379 IPC. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) THE submissions of the learned counsel have been confined only to the argument that even if the facts and circumstances of the case are accepted to be true, the ends of justice require that the sentence imposed on the petitioners should be ordered to run concurrently.