High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Dilbagh & Anr v. State of Haryana - CRA-350-1992  RD-P&H 263 (23 January 2006)
Crl.Appeal No.350 SB of 1992
Date of decision: 4.1.2006
Dilbagh and another v. State of Haryana
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.
Present: Mr. S.V.Rathee, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ramehswar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana.]
This appeal has been preferred against order of conviction of the appellants under section 397 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo further RI for six months each. The appellants have been further convicted under section 367 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo further RI for three months. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
On receipt of a writing, Ex.PC from General Hospital, Gohana, PW-10 ASI Mehar Singh visited the Hospital and recorded the statement of PW-5 Neer Singh, Ex.PJ to the effect that on 10.12.1991, he was going in Bus No.HYE-1286 as a conductor. After doing his duties, he was going to his village.. At 7.45 PM, two boys with muffled faces caught him. One of the boys gave a knife blow and the other boy snatched conductor's bag containing unused tickets and cash of Rs.800/-. One Ranbir Singh was also with the complainant and tried to apprehend the boys. The accused gave a chain blow on the head of Ranbir Singh. In the process, faces of the accused got uncovered. One of them was identified as Dilbagh Singh and the other as Subhash. Sant Lal and Bhura were also attracted on the spot.
FIR was registered on the basis of the said statement, Ex.PJ. Dilbagh Singh was arrested on 13.12.1991 and Subhash was arrested on 15.12.1991 Dilbagh Singh got recovered motorcycle chain, Ex.P.2 and conductor's bag and knife were got recovered by Subhash, as per his statement, Ex.PM., apart from other articles.
PW-1, Dr.B.K.Gupta medico legally examined Neer Singh and found an incised wound on the back of trunk. He also noticed corresponding cuts in the clothes. Randhir Singh was also found having injuries. Injury on Neer Singh was declared to be grievous.
After investigation, both the accused were challaned.
Prosecution, inter-alia, examined PW-5 Neer Singh, complainant, who supported his version as given in his statement, Ex.PJ.
PW-6 Randhir Singh, who was accompanying Neer Singh, corroborated the said version. He was got declared hostile as he did not name the accused persons. PW-8 Sant Ram who was attracted at the place of occurrence, also supported the version given by Neer Singh. PW-10 Mehar Singh and PW- 12 ASI Satbir Singh proved investigation. PW-1 Dr.B.K.Gupta, who medico-legally examined Neer Singh, was also examined. PW-9 Chand Ram and PW-11 Constable Satbir Singh are witnesses to the disclosure statements and recovery. PW-9 Chand Ram was declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution.
The trial court mainly relied upon evidence of PW-5 Neer Singh and PW-6 Ranbir Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to raise any argument against conviction of the appellants, which is fully justified from direct evidence on record.
After perusing the evidence on record, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. Conviction of the appellants is, thus, upheld.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence took place 14 years ago. The appellants faced trial and remained in custody during the trial for about nine months and for about one month after conviction. They are not previous convicts. They were below 21 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. Reference was made to statements of accused under section 313 Cr.PC, where both the appellants are recorded as students, aged 20 years and 18-1/2 years respectively. It is pointed out that in such a situation, Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is attracted. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1983(2) RCR (Criminal) 102.
I have heard learned counsel for the State, who submitted that since in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reference has been made to the report of Probation Officer to ascertain the character of the offender, let a report be sought from the Probation Officer, Sonepat before the next date.
List again on 18.3.2006.
January 4, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.