ATTENDER @ CHUNU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated

(2.) In all. there were 5 accused persons before the trial Court in the Sessions trial that was conducted before the trial Court and the appellantAttender @ Chunu was accused No.1. FIR No.369 dated 26.12.2010 was registered under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 with Police Station Sadar Sonepat, that was lodged by Jai Bhagwan-PW1 and his statement is Exhibit PA. He stated, in his complaint that on 25.12.2010 at about 7:30 P.M., he and his nephew Pardeep son of Rampal and his uncle's son Sandeep son of Raj Singh were talking to each other while standing in street in front of their house. Their neighbour, namely Sudhir son of Sham was also standing there, when, on two motorcycles, five boys out of them one was Attender son of Shamsher, resident of Kilorad, came. They started quarrelling and beating Sudhir. Sandeep brother of the complainant started saving Sudhir, upon which other four boys asserted Attender to fire at him. Upon this, Attender fired shot upon Sandeep who fell down on the ground. All the accused persons ran away on their motorcycles. Complainant could not note down the number of motorcycles due to darkness. He took Sandeep to GD.Sharma Hospital, how ever, due to non-availability of doctors, he took Sandeep to Jaipur Golden Hosiptal, where he was declared brought dead.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution did not have any evidence except that was tendered before the trial Court that there were two eye witnesses, namely PWl-Jai Bhagwan and PW2-Pardeep. Both these witnesses who were the star witnesses of the prosecution had completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. There was thus, no evidence left thereafter, and that is why the trial Court recorded the acquittal of remaining four accused persons. The trial Court convicted the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the conviction is totally bad as there is no ocular evidence in the first place and conviction has been recorded only because pistol was recovered on the alleged disclosure statement made by the appellant and the FSL report shows that the bullet was fired from the said pistol that was recovered. He, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any evidence saying that the appellant had fired, the trial Court could not have convicted the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is illegal. He therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant-Attender @ Chunu.