Judgment
Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.9.2013 ..Ram Mehar ................Appellant versus State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.C.Puri Present: Sh.
Sunil Saharan, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.
Amit Kaushik, Senior DAG, Haryana..K.C.Puri, J.
Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 15/17.2.2003 passed by Sh.
M.C.Mehra, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the accused appellant Ram Mehar alongwith Roshan Lal has been convicted under Section 392, 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 yeaRs.Accused Ram Mehar – appellant has been further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -2- year.
However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Briefly stated, the facts as gathered from the record are that Jai Bhagwan complainant made a statement to the police that he was working as a driver of Maruti car bearing registration No.DDQ-134 belonging to Bhiga Ram s/o Jagdish r/o village Mundhal.
On 9.2.2002, his vehicle was parked at bus-stand Mundhal.
At about 7.00 p.m.two boys one of them known as Ram Mehar and another boy who was wearing a black jacket came to him for hiring his car for going to Sukhpura and they paid `100/- as rental charges.
Both the persons occupied the rear seat of the vehicle.
Ram Mehar was having a white bag in his hand.
They started for Sukhpura and the car reached at a distance of 1km from Sukhpura turn, accused Ram Mehar asked the complainant to stop the car as he wanted to attend the call of nature.
Whereupon the vehicle was stopped and Ram Mehar came out of the vehicle.
He took out a double barrel small gun from his gunny bag and asked the driver to come out of the vehicle.
When the complainant came out of the vehicle, accused Ram Mehar occupied the seat of the driver.
Whereas, co-accused took the gun in his hand and both of them went alongwith the vehicle.
FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant and on 13.2.2002 car was recovered from Roshan Lal accused.
Whereas, according to the prosecution, Ram Mehar ran away from the place of occurrence.
On 31.3.2002 Ram Mehar appellant was arrested and on 1.4.2002 on his Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -3- disclosure statement, gun in question was recovered alongwith cartridges.
Charge under Sections 392, 397 IPC was framed against both the accused and charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also framed against Ram Mehar accused.
Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Jai Bhagwan – complainant, PW-2 Head Constable Om Parkash, PW-3 Amir Chand Taneja, Draftsman, PW-4 Constable Jai Pal Singh, PW-5 SI Banwari Lal, PW-6 Bisham Chander, Reader to District Magistrate, Bhiwani, PW-7 Constable Satish Kumar, PW-8 ASI Mahabir Singh, PW-9 ASI Jagdish Singh, PW-10 HC Jai Singh and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering certain documents.
The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied and pleaded false implication.
They were called upon to lead their defence evidence, but they have chosen not to lead any evidence.
Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, convicted Ram Mehar and Roshan Lal under Sections 392, 297 IPC, whereas Roshan Lal was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment and fine as narrated above.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 15/17.2.2003 passed by Sh.
M.C.Mehra, Additional Sessions Judge, Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -4- Bhiwani, Ram Mehar – appellant has preferred the present appeal, whereas Roshan Lal preferred Crl.A.No.S-976 SB of 2003.
However, Roshan Lal died during the pendency of the appeal and appeal qua him has been dismissed as having been abated vide order of the even date passed in Crl.A.No.S-976 SB of 2003.
Counsel for the appellant Ram Mehar has submitted that star witness of the prosecution was complainant Jai Bhagwan.
This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.
He has neither identified the appellant nor has uttered any word against the appellant.
It is further submitted that the trial Court has simply convicted the appellant on the basis of recovery of weapon from him and also on account of recovery of car in question from Roshan Lal.
It is further submitted that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery.
The recoveries have been planted upon the appellant and Roshan Lal.
It is further submitted that there is discrepancy regarding the fact that whether the gun was loaded or not.
It is also contended that the gun in question was 27 inch in length and it was not possible for appellant to conceal the said gun.
The prosecution story is doubtful.
So, prayer has been made for acquittal of the appellant.
Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case.
Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -5- No doubt Jai Bhagwan has not identified any of the accused, but he has supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that two persons have robbed him of the car in question at gun point.
FIR was registered on 12.2.2002 and car was recovered from Roshan Lal on 13.2.2002.
Accused Ram Mehar was also present at that time but he ran away.
It is not out of place to mention here that Ram Mehar appellant was previously known to the complainant and his name figures in the FIR itself.
It so seems that the accused have won over the complainant.
The Courts are not at the mercy of the witnesses.
The recovery of gun alongwith cartridges corroborates the prosecution version.
There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused.
Even suggestion has not been put to any of the prosecution witnesses regarding motive for false implication.
The gun was in the white bag and as such there is no ambiguity in the prosecution story.
27 inch gun can be easily taken in a bag.
Both the recovery witnesses have categorically stated that they tried to join the independent witnesses at the time of recovery from the appellant, but nobody was ready.
In the villages, normally the villagers do not come forward as they do not want to buy any enmity with the accused.
So, there is nothing unnatural.
As per the conviction slip, the appellant has already been convicted for offence under Section 397 IPC etc.and Section 25 of the Arms Act vide FIR No.25/2002 registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi.
He has also been convicted under the NDPS Act and in a case under Section 354, 353, 332, 186 IPC, besides two Excise Act cases.
Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.A.No.S-784 SB of 2003 -6- So, past record of the appellant is not clean.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 yeaRs.1 month and 3 days.
So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.
I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission.
The offence complained of is under Section 397 IPC also, which prescribes minimum sentence of 7 yeaRs.which has been awarded to him.
So, no ground for interference in respect of quantum of sentence is made out.
No other point has been urged before me.
In view of the above, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
Accused is stated to be on bail.
He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
( K.C.Puri ) 18.9.2013 Judge chugh Chugh Banita 2013.09.27 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document