GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals as the same have arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 12/2/2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the appellants, namely, Gurcharan Singh (in CRA-S-349-SB-2005) and Jarnail Singh (in CRA-S-374-SB-2005) were convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 395 read with Sec. 120 B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 each with a default stipulation. The appellant Gurcharan Singh was additionally convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 412 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 years. Both the sentences of appellant Gurcharan Singh were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief prosecution story, as can be culled out from the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C., is that the complainant Jagjit Singh s/o Azaib Singh, Caste Jat Sikh, resident of Dera Jaggi, Manakpur, made a statement on 3/5/2001 to the police and alleged that at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. on 2/5/2001, he was present at his house and 8/9 persons were seen coming to his house on foot, in the darkness. He enquired about them and they stated that they had come from a distant place and wanted to take meals. They collected all his family members in a room and also went to the house of his brother Ranjit Singh with him and all the family members of his brother were also made to sit in the same room, where his family members were sitting and closed the door. Thereafter, they had broken the locks of all the boxes belonging to both of them, opened the boxes and took out the ornaments and the cash. While leaving, they also took away one tractor mark Farmtrac bearing Registration No.HR-02D-2561 along with trolley. After they had left, the complainant side had come out by breaking open the bolts and checked their belongings. They found that all the boxes were lying open. On checking, it was found that one pair of gold ear-rings weighing one tola, three rings of gold weighing one and half tolas, one necklace weighing two tolas and about Rs.3,000.00 in cash were missing from their house. Similarly, one golden necklace weighing two tolas, two bangles weighing two tolas, one tika weighing one tola and rings weighing one and half tolas, ear-rings one tola and the anklet (pajeb) weighing eight tolas of silver were found missing from the house of Ranjit Singh. The age of those assailants was between 35 to 40 years and were talking to each other in the local dialect. One of them was wearing khaki uniform, but they were all clean shaven except two, who were having the beard. They were having weapons i.e. country-made pistols and thereafter, the complainant went to the house of Dharm Pal, Ex-Sarpanch of village Manakpur and made a telephonic call to the police. On getting the information telephonically, the police reached at the spot.

(3.) During the course of investigation, other accused were also arrested and they confessed their crime in the police custody and also got the recoveries made. Co-accused Jeet Singh @ Jeeta was arrested on 30/3/2002 and during his interrogation, he disclosed the names of the present appellants as the conspirators for the commission of the crime. In the disclosure statement suffered by Jeet Singh @ Jeeta, it was alleged that the present appellants had conspired with them and had been instrumental in getting the dacoity committed from the co-accused as Gurcharan Singh, appellant, wanted to teach a lesson to the present complainant. Jarnail Singh, appellant, was in jail with Jeet Singh @ Jeeta and had engaged him to do the needful. Accused-appellant Gurcharan Singh was arrested and he suffered his disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of one ear-ring from him. After completion of the necessary investigation, the challan was presented against both the appellants under Sec. 395 read with Sec. 120-B IPC and accused-appellant Gurcharan Singh was additionally charge-sheeted under Sec. 412 IPC in the competent court and the appellants denied the charge.