SUDHIR Vs. VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sudhir son of Baldev, who is the 'victim' in the case has filed both these appeals i.e. CRA No. D-1933-DB of 2014 and CRA No. D-1934-DB of 2014. The said appeals arise out of same FIR No. 40 dated 14.01.2015 registered at police Station City Fatehabad for the offences under Sections 364, 323, 452, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short); besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Criminal Appeal No. D-1933-DB of 2014 has been filed for modifying the judgment of conviction dated 07.11.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.11.2014 of the learned trial Court and for convicting and sentencing respondent No.1 Vinod Kumar son of Bharat Singh for the offence under Section 364 IPC as well. Similarly Criminal Appeal No. D-1934-DB of 2014 has been filed for modifying the judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2014 and order of sentence dated 12.03.2014 of the learned trial Court and for convicting and sentencing respondents No. 1 to 8 in the said appeal as per the charges framed i.e. for the offence under Section 364 IPC also. Vinod Kumar respondent No.1 in CRA No.D-1933-DB of 2014 and respondents No.1 to 6 in CRA No.D-1934-DB of 2014 have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 365, 323, 452, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. By this common order, both the appeals are being disposed of. FIR in the case was registered on the statement of the complainant-Ravinder (PW-5) son of Baldev Singh. According to the complainant-Ravinder, the marriage of his younger brother Sudhir Kumar (appellant), who is an advocate, was to be solemnized on 16.01.2005. On the day of occurrence i.e. 13.01.2005 at about 7.30 pm, the hoodlums of the area Rajpal, Subhash, Bhup Singh @ Pappu son of Gupti Ram @ Chandergupt Kilari and Vinod son of Jagat Pal, Vinayak and his brother sons of Bharat Singh, Inder @ Fauji son of Dayala Ram Swami and two sons of Rajpal residents of village Deeng, Devi Lal son of Gehna Singh resident of Mehuwala and 8-10 unknown persons came to their house in four vehicles.

(2.) They were armed with 'lathis' and 'gandasis'. Rajpal and Vinod were armed with pistols in their hands. All of them entered their house and by pointing a pistol on the temple of his brother Sudhir picked him up and took him by putting him in a car. Vinod, Bhup Singh, Vinayak etc. also held out threats to kill them. When the complainant side tried to free the brother of the complainant, then the accused inflicted fist blows, besides, slapped them and while abusing they took away his brother. Rajpal proclaimed that in case the matter was reported to the police then they would kill Sudhir (appellant). The complainant lodged a report with the police and prayed that his brother Sudhir be saved and got freed; besides, action be taken against the accused. At the time of occurrence Surender and Ram Murti were present.

(3.) On the basis of information given by Ravinder, FIR for the offences as mentioned above was registered by ASI Ram Kumar. The learned trial Court vide order dated 14.03.2007 in the case out of which CRA No.D-1934-DB of 2014 arises framed charges against the eleven accused except Amar Singh (accused No.11 who it is stated has since died) for the offences under Sections 148, 452, 364, 323, 149 and 506 IPC and Amar Singh was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 216-A IPC. Vinod Kumar (respondent No.1 in CRA No.D-1933-DB of 2014) son of Bharat Singh at that time was a proclaimed offender and had been declared as such vide order dated 26.09.2011. He was later arrested and a separate trial was conducted against him, in which he was convicted and sentenced and is now subject matter of CRA No. D-1933-DB of 2014.