SULTAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crm No.11552 of 2016

(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Sessions Case No.33 of 2009, by which the Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal, convicted the present appellant No.1-Sultan son of Sheikh Shahjad and appellant No.2-Ajay alias Shahid son of Mohd. Sakir for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC for short) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on each count and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have acquitted the appellants since the prosecution had left a serious lacuna of not holding the test identification parade, in the absence of which, it was difficult to award the conviction and benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellantsaccused persons. The prosecution did not prove it case, though, dacoity was alleged to have been committed by the accused persons. It is contended that the evidence of the police witnesses should not have been accepted by the trial Judge being the interested witnesses in securing conviction of the accused. He also contended that the identification made by the witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, was unbelievable in order to hold the appellants guilty of such serious offences. In the alternative, he submitted that with remission, appellant No.1-Sultan has undergone the sentence of 9 years, 5 months and 5 days while, appellant No.2-Ajay alias Shahid had undergone sentence of 8 years, 7 months and 25 days as against award of sentence of 10 years. He contended that the appellants have undergone almost the complete sentence and therefore, they should be allowed to be released on sentence they have already undergone.