BALRAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 78-SB of 1988 'Balwan v. State of Haryana' arise out of same judgment of the learned trial Court and common questions of fact and law are involved therein. So, this order will dispose of both these appeals.

(2.) For an occurrence which took place on the night intervening 8/9-6-1987 in village Gari Sampla, the appellants in the two appeals along with their co-accused Balwan and Barketu were sent up to face their trial for offences punishable under Sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 8-1-1988 acquitted Barketu and Rattan but convicted Balraj for an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Balwan under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide separate order dated 11-1-1988, Balraj-appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, appellant Balwan was released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year, under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, to keep peace and be of good behaviour and to come and receive sentence, if any, during the said period of one year as and when called upon by the Court. He was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation to Prem Sukh injured.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the above-mentioned two appeals challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.