Muni Lal Alias Chhedi Lal Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055077
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-13-2013
AppellantMuni Lal Alias Chhedi Lal
RespondentUnion Territory Chandigarh
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 date of decision :13. 08.2013 muni lal alias chhedi lal ...appellant versus union territory, chandigarh ...respondent coram : hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh *** present : mr.j.s.mehandiratta, legal aid counsel and mr.a.s.chahal, advocate, for the appellants. mr.sarfraj hussain, additional public prosecutor, for the respondent-union territory, chandigarh. *** inderjit singh, j appellant muni lal alias chhedi lal has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2001, passed by additional sessions judge, chandigarh, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 392 read with section 397 ipc and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. however, he has malhotra mamta been acquitted under section 25 of the arms act. 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 [2].brief facts of the prosecution case are that fir in the present case has been registered on the statement of complainant om pal in which he stated that on 28.02.1999, at about 10:00 a.m., he reached the chowk of marble market, chandigarh on cycle for selling the clothes as usual, where accused muni lal alongwith one nathini met him and told that they were to purchase the clothes worth rs.1,000/-/rs.1500/-, therefore, he (complainant) should accompany them to sector 42, chandigarh. on this, complainant accompanied them to the place where the house was under construction. accused muni lal and one hathini asked the complainant to go upstairs where both the accused caught hold of him. accused muni lal took out a revolver from the dub of the pant and put it on the head of complainant and asked him to hand over whatever was with him . at this complainant took out a black coloured purs.containing rs.1,000/- and handed over the same to accused hathini. when both the accused tried to run away after snatching the amount, the complainant raised alarm and attracted the labourers.accused hathini succeeded in escaping. police officials also reached the spot. appellant-accused muni lal was apprehended on the spot with the help of persons present on the spot. it is also stated in the fir that accused muni lal fired a shot from his revolver with an intention to kill those labourers who tried to apprehend him but the bullet hit the wall only. after necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the court. malhotra mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 [3].on presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under section 207 cr.p.c.finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge- sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under section 392 read with section 397 ipc and section 25 of the arms act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. the prosecution, in support of its case, examined pw1 constable yash pal, who prepared scaled site plans ex.pa to ex.pc. pw2 constable gurdas ram and pw3 head constable satbir singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits ex.pd and ex.pe respectively. pw4 constable manjit singh, photographer, mainly proved the photographs ex.p1 to ex.p4 and negatives ex.p5 to ex.p8 of the said photographs. pw5 om pal, complainant, deposed as per prosecution version. pw6 sub inspector sukhwinder singh deposed regarding registration of fir ex.pk/1 on the basis of ruqa ex.pk. pw7 sant ram, one of the person present at the time of occurrence, also deposed as per prosecution version. pw8 sub inspector baljit singh, investigating officer, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. pw9 sachit kumar, labourer, who came at the place of occurrence, also deposed as per prosecution version. at the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 cr.p.c.and confronted with the malhotra mamta evidence of prosecution. the accused denied the correctness of the 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 [4].evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. he also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. all the allegations levelled against him are wrong. no evidence was led in defence. the trial court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as stated above. however, he was acquitted under section 25 of the arms act. at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant-accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. he further contended that there is no evidence that the petitioner caused any grievous injury with deadly weapon. therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted accordingly. on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-u.t., chandigarh contended that pws have duly proved the prosecution case. they have consistently deposed as per prosecution version. there are no material contradictions or material improvements in the statements of pws. learned counsel for respondent further contended that the accused was apprehended on the spot with revolver, though he has been acquitted under section 25 of the arms act on technical ground as sanction was not proved by the prosecution. learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal having no merit should be dismissed. malhotra mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 [5].i have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-ut, chandigarh and with their assistance i have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. from the evidence on record, i find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. pw5 om pal, complainant, has mainly deposed as per prosecution version. the appellant was apprehended on the spot by the police officials as well as labourers who were working nearby. the statement of complainant is duly supported by the statements of pw7 sant ram and pw9 sachit kumar. there is nothing on the record as to why these pws will depose falsely against the accused. they have no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. the perusal of the statements of these pws shows that nothing is there which may make their statements unreliable. they are truthful and trustworthy witnesses. there are also no material contradictions or material improvements in their statements which may go to the root of the case. their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by the investigation of this case. as regarding the fact that the appellant-accused was apprehended on the spot with the revolver and he pointed the revolver on the head of the complainant and threatened him to hand over whatever was in his possession, otherwise, he would be done to death, therefore, amounts that he used that weapon. as such, the malhotra mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh criminal appeal not s-425-sb of 2001 [6].offence under section 392 read with section 397 ipc is made out. there is nothing on the record to show that appellant is innocent or has been falsely implicated in the present case. pws have consistently deposed as per prosecution version. prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence. as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are upheld. therefore, i do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 13.08.2013 (inderjit singh) mamta judge malhotra mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 Date of decision :

13. 08.2013 Muni Lal alias Chhedi Lal ...Appellant VERSUS Union Territory, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH *** Present : Mr.J.S.Mehandiratta, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr.A.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh.

*** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Muni Lal alias Chhedi Lal has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

However, he has Malhotra Mamta been acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 [2].Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of complainant Om Pal in which he stated that on 28.02.1999, at about 10:00 a.m., he reached the chowk of Marble Market, Chandigarh on cycle for selling the clothes as usual, where accused Muni Lal alongwith one Nathini met him and told that they were to purchase the clothes worth Rs.1,000/-/Rs.1500/-, therefore, he (complainant) should accompany them to Sector 42, Chandigarh.

On this, complainant accompanied them to the place where the house was under construction.

Accused Muni Lal and one Hathini asked the complainant to go upstairs where both the accused caught hold of him.

Accused Muni Lal took out a revolver from the dub of the pant and put it on the head of complainant and asked him to hand over whatever was with him .

At this complainant took out a black coloured puRs.containing Rs.1,000/- and handed over the same to accused Hathini.

When both the accused tried to run away after snatching the amount, the complainant raised alarm and attracted the laboureRs.Accused Hathini succeeded in escaping.

Police officials also reached the spot.

Appellant-accused Muni Lal was apprehended on the spot with the help of persons present on the spot.

It is also stated in the FIR that accused Muni Lal fired a shot from his revolver with an intention to kill those labourers who tried to apprehend him but the bullet hit the wall only.

After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.

Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 [3].On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge- sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Constable Yash Pal, who prepared scaled site Plans Ex.PA to Ex.PC.

PW2 Constable Gurdas Ram and PW3 Head Constable Satbir Singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.PE respectively.

PW4 Constable Manjit Singh, Photographer, mainly proved the photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and negatives Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 of the said photographs.

PW5 Om Pal, complainant, deposed as per prosecution version.

PW6 Sub Inspector Sukhwinder Singh deposed regarding registration of FIR Ex.PK/1 on the basis of ruqa Ex.PK.

PW7 Sant Ram, one of the person present at the time of occurrence, also deposed as per prosecution version.

PW8 Sub Inspector Baljit Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case.

PW9 Sachit Kumar, labourer, who came at the place of occurrence, also deposed as per prosecution version.

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and confronted with the Malhotra Mamta evidence of prosecution.

The accused denied the correctness of the 2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 [4].evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.

He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

All the allegations levelled against him are wrong.

No evidence was led in defence.

The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as stated above.

However, he was acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant-accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.

He further contended that there is no evidence that the petitioner caused any grievous injury with deadly weapon.

Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appeal should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted accordingly.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-U.T., Chandigarh contended that PWs have duly proved the prosecution case.

They have consistently deposed as per prosecution version.

There are no material contradictions or material improvements in the statements of PWs.

Learned counsel for respondent further contended that the accused was apprehended on the spot with revolver, though he has been acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms Act on technical ground as sanction was not proved by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.

Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 [5].I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-UT, Chandigarh and with their assistance I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

From the evidence on record, I find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant.

PW5 Om Pal, complainant, has mainly deposed as per prosecution version.

The appellant was apprehended on the spot by the police officials as well as labourers who were working nearby.

The statement of complainant is duly supported by the statements of PW7 Sant Ram and PW9 Sachit Kumar.

There is nothing on the record as to why these PWs will depose falsely against the accused.

They have no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.

The perusal of the statements of these PWs shows that nothing is there which may make their statements unreliable.

They are truthful and trustworthy witnesses.

There are also no material contradictions or material improvements in their statements which may go to the root of the case.

Their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by the investigation of this case.

As regarding the fact that the appellant-accused was apprehended on the spot with the revolver and he pointed the revolver on the head of the complainant and threatened him to hand over whatever was in his possession, otherwise, he would be done to death, therefore, amounts that he used that weapon.

As such, the Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Criminal Appeal not S-425-SB of 2001 [6].offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC is made out.

There is nothing on the record to show that appellant is innocent or has been falsely implicated in the present case.

PWs have consistently deposed as per prosecution version.

Prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence.

As such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are upheld.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

13.08.2013 (INDERJIT SINGH) mamta JUDGE Malhotra Mamta 2013.08.23 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh