MADAN & ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that on 3.6.2001, a wireless (VT) message was received by the SHO of Police Station, Ganaur from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat to the effect that three young persons had snatched a white coloured Maruti Zen car, bearing registration No.2634, from the Singla Medical Store, Gohana Road, Sonepat. In pursuance of VT message, a police party headed by SI/SHO Randhir Singh (PW4) consisted of complainant ASI Dhanpat Rai (PW3) (for brevity "the complainant") and other police officers had arranged/erected checking Barrier (Naka) near village Kaliana. Meanwhile, another Maruti car, bearing registration No.DL-2- CE-9884 came from the side of village Moi. The driver was signaled to stop the car. Instead of slowing down, he accelerated its speed and did not care for the signal. Then, Constable Jaibir driver stopped the police jeep in front of and the Maruti car was stopped. According to the prosecution that one person was sitting near the driver seat, whereas the remaining persons were traveling on the rear seats of the Maruti car. As soon as, the car was stopped, in the meantime, the person sitting near the driver on the front seat, fired a shot from his country made pistol, aiming towards the complainant, but he escaped and the shot did not hit any body. The two accused traveling on the rear seats managed to escape. However, the other accused were apprehended at the spot by PW4 with the help of other police officials, who subsequently disclosed their respective names.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the appellant-convict Madan Lal was driving the Maruti car and main accused appellant Rajpal (since deceased) had fired a shot with the intention to kill, but the complainant escaped and the shot did not hit any body. Appellant Rup Chand and accused Sunil alias Sonu have managed to escape from the place of occurrence, whereas appellants Madan Lal, Rajpal and Kuldeep were apprehended at the spot. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement (Ex.PD) of the complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the appellants and Sunil alias Sonu (acquitted accused), by way of FIR No.127 dated 3.6.2001 (Ex.PD/2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s 307 read with section 34 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellants to face the trial for the indicated offences.