SUMER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 5.4.1995 and the order of sentence dated 17.4.1995, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellants) for the offence, punishable under 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergos rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year each.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Baljit Singh, complainant was employed as a driver with Nahar Singh on his Maruti car bearing registration No. DNB-4759, which was being used as a taxi. He used to park it at taxi stand, Gohana. On 1.5.1994, Jitender, accused (since acquitted) booked the said taxi for a marriage party for Rs. 500/-. The marriage party had to proceed from village Butana to village Bayanpur on 2.5.1994. On 2.5.1994 at 8 am, he reached village Butana. Six persons tried to board his taxi to which he resisted and, accordingly, took five of them to village Bayanpur. Again at 7.30 pm, the said five persons, who were under the influence of liquor boarded the taxi. When they reached ahead of police lines on Gohana Road, then one of them asked him to stop the car. He stopped the same and then one of them questioned him, why he did not allow all the six to sit in the car. Accordingly, one of them made him to get down from the taxi, and forcibly snatched the car from him. Thereafter, accused Jitender (since acquitted) occupied the driving seat and started the car for Gohana along with associates. The complainant then proceeded to the Police Station for the purpose of registration of the case. On the way, SI Pritam Singh, PW3 met him, and his statement Ex.PA was recorded, on the basis whereof formal FIR was recorded.

(3.) ON their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.