SUKHDEV SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgement we will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 1994 titled as Sukhdev Singh Rana v. The State of Haryana preferred against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 30-4-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani Criminal Appeal No. 201-DB of 1994, titled as Rajinder Singh v. The State of Haryana preferred by Rajinder Singh against the same judgement and order of conviction against him passed by the learned trial Judge, Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1994, titled as Smt. Sandokhi v. Rajinder Singh, wherein she has prayed that the sentence awarded to the above mentioned three appellants be enhanced to death sentence and Criminal Appeal No. 81-DB(A) of 1995, titled as Smt. Sandokhi v. Dharambir, praying that the three accused-respondents acquitted by the learned trial Court be awarded sentence of death, in the interest of justice.

(2.) Vide order dated 11-5-94, a Division Bench of this Court had admitted Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 1994, and issued notice qua bail to the State. Vide order dated 3-6-1994, both the appeals were directed to be listed for regular hearing at No. 1 on July 6, 1994 by another Division Bench of this Court. Criminal Revision No. 389 of 1994, was directed to be heard with Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 1994, and Criminal Appeal No. 210-DB of 1994 vide order dated 15-7-1994. The matter was listed for regular hearing and during the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of the Bench that no order has been passed on Criminal Appeal No. 81-DBA of 1995. Vide order dated 2-2-1995 we had allowed Criminal Misc. No. 210-M of 1994, moved in Criminal Appeal No. 81-DBA of 1991, and following orders were passed :-"Leave granted. Appeal admitted.Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 1-3-1995.All contentions are kept open."

(3.) As the matter was part-heard and no error could be attributed to any of the parties, we had considered appropriate to hear all the above mentioned cases together and that was the precise reason as to why all contentions were kept open available to the respective parties vide order dated 2-2-1995.