VINOD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 51715-M of 2001 (Vinod v. State of Haryana), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7324-M of 2002 (Krishan Dutt v. State of Haryana) and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8375 of 2002 (Parmod Kumar v. State of Haryana) as these arise out of the same First Information Report bearing No. 170 dated 21.7.2001 under Sections 304 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the statement of Rajinder Singh. According to his version, on 21.7.2001 at about 1.30 P.M. he along with his nephew Ashok Kumar was present in front of the house of Rohtash son of Rattan Lal resident of village Teha. At that time, they (complainant Rajinder Singh and his nephew Ashok Kumar) were talking with Suresh, Sarpanch, and Rohtash. Soon thereafter, they heard a noise "Le Lo, Le Lo" coming from the side of the house of Krishan Dutt. Upon hearing the noise, they went running towards the house of Krishan Dutt. They were followed by a number of persons. They noticed that accused Krishan Dutt and Parmod were carrying guns with them. Accused Vinod son of Krishan Dutt was having a pistol in his hand. Accused Prem Chand son of Hukam Chand was carrying a sword in his hand while accused Anguri wife of Krishan Dutt and Sunita wife of Parmod were armed with Dandas. All the accused were present in front of their house under a 'Neem tree'. At that time, Jai Kanwar, brother of the complainant Rajinder Singh, was going towards the house of accused Krishan Dutt. Accused Parmod Kumar, who was standing near the water reservoir, fired two shots at Jai Kanwar and the pallets of the shots hit him on the face and head, as a result of which he fell down. When Ashok Kumar, nephew of the complainant, rushed to rescue Jai Kanwar, accused Krishan Dutt fired a shot from his gun at Ashok Kumar, which resulted in pallet injuries on his right hand and left foot. Thereafter, accused Parmod Kumar and Krishan Dutt fired eight/nine shots from their respective weapons, but none hit any person of the complainant party. Accused Sunita, after taking guns from the other accused, escaped towards the fields. Jai Kanwar succemberd to the injuries at the spot. Thereafter, accused Krishan Dutt, Parmod Kumar, Vinod, Prem Chand and Anguri left the spot along with their respective weapons. Ashok Kumar was taken to Civil Hospital at Ganaur. Leaving Rohtash and Suresh, Sarpanch, at the spot in order to guard the dead body of Jai Kanwar, Rajinder Singh went to the Police Station to lodge the report. After completion of investigation, challan has been put in Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner-accused Vinod, at the threshold of arguments, stated that the plea raised in the petition that the said accused was a juvenile on the date of commission of the crime, was not pressed by him. His argument, while pressing for bail of petitioner-accused Vinod, was that taking the prosecution allegations at their face value, no overt act has been attributed to him because he is not said to have used the pistol and had not caused any injury to the deceased or the witnesses. Rather, according to the learned counsel, accused Vinod, being the son of accused Krishan Dutt, has been roped in falsely in this case because of the enmity over the land dispute which Krishan Dutt was having with the accused. This was despite the fact that Krishan Dutt was in possession of the land regarding which proceedings under Section 145 of the Code had already taken place.