MUKHTIAR SINGH MUKHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 392, 397 and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 392 IPC seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC read with Section 392 IPC and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11.9.1985, Maha Singh who was posted as Security Guard B.H.E.L., Thermal Plant, Panipat was going from Panipat to his village and when he reached in the area of village Untla he was overtaken by two persons travelling on scooter. Both of them got down from the scooter and the person sitting on the pillion seat, aiming his pistol towards the chest of Maha Singh and abusing him asked to produce everything whatsoever he had in his possession otherwise he would be shot dead. The other person forcibly snatched away the H.M.T. watch from his wrist and in the meantime, the pillion-rider who was armed with pistol, snatched away the gold ring weighing about 4 Masas and after robbing Maha Singh both the accused left towards Matloda village. Meanwhile, a police party headed by Inspector Pirthi Singh reached there in Matador. The complainant was made to sit in the Matador in which the police party was travelling. They chased the accused. The accused fired a shot at the Matador. Then Inspector Pirthi Singh also fired a shot in the air. On hearing the shot, both the accused tried to run away by leaving the scooter on the road. The police was able to apprehend the present accused appellant while the other succeeded in running away. Accused Mukhtiar Singh was arrested and on search one H.M.T. wrist watch and a country made pistol with live cartridges was recovered from him. Thereafter, Inspector Pirthi Singh recorded the statement of Maha Singh, complainant Ext. PD and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in Court against the accused for the offences under Sections 392/397/ 307/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses and marked documents. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused examined three witnesses in defence. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned AddI. Sessions Judge Kamal convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the above appeal.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the present accused-appellant and anpther robbed Maha Singh. The accused robbed one gold ring and a wrist watch when the complainant was going on bi-cycle from Panipat to his village on 11.9.1985 and the accused came on a scooter. After robbing the complainant the accused-appellant and other accomplice fled away towards village Matloda on a scooter. Meanwhile, the police party came there and picked up Maha Singh complainant alongwith them and chased the accused and his accomplice. On seeing the police party, the accused fired a shot from his pistol which hit the Matador in wnich the police party was travelling. PW2 deposed the said facts and his evidence was, corroborated by PW5 Inspector Pirthi Singh, the Investigating Officer and also the Sub Inspector Pratap Singh, PW. 3 who is also member of the police party. I do not find any infirmity in their evidence. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge rightly relied upon their evidence and came to the conclusion that the accused robbed PW 2 when he was going on a bicycle from Panipat to his village on the night of September 11, 1985. It is also in the evidence of PW5. 2, 3 and 5 that the accused fired a shot from his pistol when he was being chased by the police party. I do not therefore, find any grounds warranting interference with the conviction recorded by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge. The accused was in jail and has undergo sentence of 1 1/2 years. The offence took place in September, 1985 and at the time of commission of offence the accused was only of 23 years age. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused can be reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Subject to modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.