JAI DEEP SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 5/2/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 8/5/2009, has been allowed and the petitioners had been convicted in case FIR No.365 dtd. 22/8/2001, registered under Ss. 420, 452, 341, 506,120-B, 34IPC, at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-

(2.) The case of the prosecution is based upon the statement of the complainant-Amit Gulati dtd. 22/8/2001 wherein he stated that on 20/4/2001, Jaideep Saini(petitioner No.l), his brother-Hawan Saini(petitioner No.2) and their father-Rattan Singh Saini visited the complainant's residence and told that Jaideep Saini and Hawan Saini were the owners of House No. 1405, Sector 4, Panchkula. They offered to sell the said property to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000.00, assuring him that the house was free from all encumbrances and stood in their joint names in the HUDA records. They further stated that they had been residing there for the past four years. After relying upon their statement, the complainant agreed to purchase the house and on 27/4/2001, made a part payment of Rs.1,20,000.00, giving Rs.60,000.00 each to Jaideep Saini and Hawan Saini in the presence of Naresh Bhatia and Tajinder Singh. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.8,80,000.00 would be paid to them upon handing over possession of the property, producing ownership documents and executing the sale deed in his favour. The petitioners assured the complainant that they would provide photocopies of the title documents, on the following day to enable preparation of the sale papers. Receipts acknowledging the payment were duly signed by Jaideep Saini and Hawan Saini and handed over to the complainant. However, despite repeated requests, the petitioners failed to deliver the title documents. Upon verification, the complainant discovered that the petitioners had falsely represented themselves as owners of the said property. When confronted, the petitioners tried to settle the matter by refunding the money. They issued two post-dated cheques of Rs.60,000.00 each dtd. 1/6/2001, assuring that they would repay the amount in cash on 26/5/2001, upon which the complainant could return the cheques. They further stated that in case of non-payment in cash, the complainant could present the cheques for encashment. However, when the complainant presented the cheques for payment, the same were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, Jaideep Saini again assured the complainant that he would make the payment in cash on 8/7/2001, but he failed to do so. However, on 9/7/2001 at about 08:30 A.M. Jaideep and Hawan Saini alongwith three unknown persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and after restraining him gave him fist and slap blows and also abused him in filthy language and asked him to return the cheques and receipts. When the complainant raised alarm his neighbour Tajinder Singh came there at which the assailants left the house threatening the complainant with dire consequences in case he reported the matter to the police.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid statement of Amit Gulati, preliminary investigation was carried out by SI Madan Pal, HC Narinder Kumar, SI Hari Pal. The house in question was found to be in the name of Sh. Kewal Krishan. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused persons and during trial, Rattan Singh (father of the petitioners) had expired. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Ss. 420, 452, 341 read with Sec. 120B and 506 IPC was framed against the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.