RAM KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.209 dated 23.6.2011, under Sections 302, 307, 332, 353, 216 IPC and various other Sections, besides under the Arms Act. This FIR is lodged by Satbir Singh, who is cousin brother of Rakesh Sarpanch. It is stated that Rakesh Sarpanch was having old enmity with Rakesh son of Lilu. While Rakesh Sarpanch alongwith the complainant were playing cards at Balaji Service Station, Ramotar, two young boys came on a Motorcyle and fired at the party. One bullet hit on the waist of Dharamvir son of Raghubir. The persons ran away leaving the cards. The Motorcyclists, however, followed Rakesh Sarpanch. They fired shots from their weapon on Rakesh Sarpanch. He fell down and ultimately died.

(2.) The petitioner concededly is not the one who was riding the Motorcycle. He, however, has been involved in the case on the basis of a disclosure statement made by his co-accused Ajit Singh, that too to another person, named, Sanjay. This disclosure statement was made on 29.7.2011. A perusal of this disclosure statement would show that 2-3 Phones alongwith SIM cards were provided at the shop of Sukhbir Saini to keep in touch with regard to moment of Rakesh Sarpanch. One Mobile phone was kept by Ajit Singh and other was given to the petitioner. It is only this rule on the basis of which the petitioner is involved in the present case.

(3.) No direct role has been attributed to the petitioner. At the most, he is alleged to be a conspirator and that too on the basis of statement of a co-accused, which ultimately may be a weak evidence unless it is corroborated etc.