PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition, under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 10.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal, vide which, respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge in case FIR No. 194 dated 21.5.1999, registered under Sections 380, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed. The case was registered on the complaint made by Prem Chand and Anuj Kumar. They being the owners of M/s. Prem Chand Rice Company were running their business in the hired rice mill working under the name and style of Ganga Rice Mill. On 20.5.1999 at about 11 P.M. while Prem Chand was sleeping in the godown, accused Shankar Dayal, who was already known to him, asked him to open the gate. Accused Shankar sought permission for parking a tractor -trolley bearing No. 6877 in his godown. In the meantime, two persons, one of them was working with M/s. Baldev Singh Jagtar Singh, came with the tractor trolley. Three other persons also reached there. The complainant immediately rang up his house and asked his father to teach the spot as he was sensing something fishy. In the meantime, trespassers snatched telephone from him and plugged out it's cable. Thereafter, they started beating him and kept a gun on his chest. In the meantime, his father reached the spot, who was also manhandled. They locked up the chowkidar in a separate room and they also locked up complainant and his father in the office room. Thereafter, they all loaded 860 bags of Basmati rice in the tractor trolley and fled away at about 4 A.M. After completion of investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, the challan was presented.

(2.) THE accused were charged under Sections 380 and 323 of IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence and false implication.