PHOOLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals, one bearing No. Crl. Appeal No. 704-SB of 2003 filed by Phoola and another bearing No. Crl. Appeal No. 735-SB of 2003 filed by Nater Pal against judgment dated 11/16.1.2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby these appellants had been convicted for offence under Sections 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each.

(2.) PROSECUTION case against these appellants was that on 6.1.1996 at about 10.30 PM, Khushal Chand along with his partner Ashok Kumar had loaded 95 bags of rice from Gopal Rice Sheller, Dhand and left for Delhi in truck No. HYA- 7995 and that truck was being driven by Khushal Chand himself. Then at about 2.00. AM (night), when they were in the area of village Manana, G.T. Road, they noticed another truck bearing No. DIG-8505 parked on the left side of the road and a jeep in the middle of the road. As a result of which, Khushal Chand had to stop his truck and Ashok Kumar alighted from the truck. Then 3-4 assailants took Ashok Kumar towards a brick-kiln. Then Khushal Chand also got down from the truck and went towards the brick-kiln. He was also caught hold by those persons. Then his both the hands and feet were tied with a parna and he was put in a kothra. Ashok Kumar was also lodged in a brick-kiln kotha and Rs. 100/- were taken from the pocket of Khushal Chand and Rs. 2500/- from the pocket of Ashok Kumar, where they remained lodged for about two hours. They were later on freed by the driver of other truck bearing No. DIG-8505. The assailants were in the age of 27-28 years and were speaking Haryanvi language. They also snatched money from the driver of the other truck. They were armed with dandas etc. Then Khushal Chand and Ashok Kumar did not find their truck which had been taken away by the assailants towards Delhi. Police had on this information, registered case for offence under Section 395 IPC. Then during investigation of another case, one Tirath Pal was arrested, who made confession of involvement in this case to the effect that crime had been committed by him along with Phool Singh, Manush alias Munshi, Imran, Naresh and Naterpal. Then Naterpal was arrested but he refused to join identification parade. However, 8 bags of rice each were recovered from the possession of Tirath Pal and Naterpal. Then Naresh and Phool Singh during investigation of the case of another case also made confession of having taken part in this crime. Four bags each of rice were recovered from their rooms on their disclosure statement. However, Manush alias Munshi and Imran could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders. Tirath Pal, Naterpal, Naresh and Phoola then were sent for trial. Then Naresh, Phool Singh and Tirath Ram had escaped from custody and were declared proclaimed offenders. However, subsequently, Phoola was arrested and ultimately trial proceeded only against Phoola and Nater Pal. The prosecution case after trial was found to be duly proved as against these persons. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) AFTER going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I do not find any infirmity as far as conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 395 IPC is concerned. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case to take lenient view. As such, substantive sentence of the appellants is reduced form 10 years RI to 7 years RI under Section 395 IPC.