RAGHBIR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.10.2003, rendered by Sh. J.D. Chandna, the then Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Hisar, whereby accused Saroj, Surender Pal son of Sajjan Singh and accused/ appellant, Raghbir Singh @ Rugha, were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 148, 332 and 149 Penal Code and were convicted accordingly, whereas accused Sajjan Singh had died during the course of trial. Learned trial Court gave benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') to accused Saroj whereas accused Surender Pal and accused/appellant Raghbir were sentenced to undergo RI for two years each for committing offence punishable under Sections 332/149 Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 each with default clause. Accused Surender Pal and Raghbir @ Rugha had also sentenced to undergo RI for two years each for committing offence HC Mohinder Singh were also medico legally examined. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, accused Sajjan Singh got recovered gandasa. Co-accused were also arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, report under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C. was prepared and challan was filed in Court.

(2.) All the accused were charge sheeted for committing offences punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 and 332/149 Penal Code. To the charge, accused did not plead guilty but claimed trial.

(3.) After taking entire prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. were recorded. Accused denied each prosecution allegation and pleaded their innocence. The defence taken by the accused/appellant is this that; he was implicated in this case falsely as Sajjan Singh was called in the police station on 30.8.1997 and SI Shish Ram demanded a monthly sum of Rs. 20,000.00 as bribe from Sajjan Singh and when Sajjan Singh denied to pay the same, they were falsely implicated in this case. Accused also examined in his defence Kehar Singh as DW1 and Raja as DW2.