Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHYE SHYAM & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Radhye Shyam & Anr v. State of Haryana - CRA-420-1993 [2006] RD-P&H 264 (23 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.A.No.420 SB of 1993

Date of decision:11.1.2006

Radhye Shyam and another v. State of Haryana CORAM:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Present:Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG,Haryana.

ORDER:

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

This appeal has been preferred by Radhye Shyam and Sat Pal against their conviction and sentence is as under:- "1.392 IPC RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months each.

2. 394 IPC To undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months each.

3. 397 IPC To undergo RI for 7 years each.

4. 333 IPC To undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months each.

5. 506 IPC To undergo RI for one year each." Case of the prosecution is that Jagdish Rai, Clerk of Government High School, Jajwan, District Jind, came to Jind to collect salary of the staff on 1.1.1993 at 9 AM alongwith Ram Chander, PW-8.

While going back in a fitter rehra, accused Sat Pal holding a pistol and Radhye Shyam holding an iron rode, assaulted Jagdish Rai and tried to snatch bag containing Rs.49000/-. Jagdish Rai was injured and later died.

He was admitted to the Hospital where his statement Ex.PK was recorded.

After investigation, the accused were challaned under sections 392/394 IPC. Charge was framed under sections 392/394/397/333/506 IPC.

Separate charge under section 120-B IPC was framed against Radhye Shyam, Sat Pal and Raghbir Singh.

Prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.G.D.Gupta, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Jind, PW-2 Dewan Chand, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, PW-3, Surinder Pal, Patwari, PW-4 Dr.H.N.Sehgal, SMO, Civil Hospital Jind, who medico-legally examined the injured, PW-5 Kamlesh Kumar Jain, Head Cashier, State Bank of Patiala, Narnaul, who was posted earlier at Jind, PW-7 Mangal Singh, eye witness, PW-8 Ram Chander, eye witness, PW-9 Pawan Kumar, eye witness, PW-10 Ram Sneh, Head Master, Government High School, Jajwan, PW-11 Angrej ASI and PW-12 Dharam Singh, SI, who conducted investigation.

After considering evidence on record and particularly evidence of eye witnesses, the trial court held the case of the prosecution to be fully proved and convicted the appellants under sections 392/394/397/333/506 IPC. Charge of conspiracy was, however, rejected.

When the appeal came up for hearing, prayer for bail qua Satpal was declined. Radhye Shyam was, however, granted bail on 23.2.1994 and it is stated by the learned counsel for the State that he was released on 3.3.1994. Sat Pal, accordingly, completed his sentence and was released.

On 7.12.2005, learned counsel for the appellants stated that his clients were not contacting him and, therefore, he was unable to argue the case. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- were issued.

Learned counsel for the State says that appellant Sat Pal has been brought to this court, though he has already undergone sentence.

In view of the fact that Sat Pal has already undergone sentence, he is directed to be released forthwith.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays for an adjournment to argue appeal on behalf of appellant Radhye Shyam.

List again on 18.1.2006.

A copy of this order certified by the Reader of this Court be given to the learned counsel for the State.

January 11, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

'gs' Judge

Crl.M.No.52914 M of 2002 (O&M)

Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. PPS Duggal, Advocate.

Mr. GS Bhandari, DAG,Pb.

Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate.

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

On 9.11.2005, following order was passed:- "The petitioner is facing proceedings under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act). Allegation is that he used same derogatory words against the complainant. Charge has been framed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge could not be framed in absence of averment that the accused was aware of the Caste of the complainant. It cannot be held that in the present case, this averment is missing and, therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.

It is further submitted that commission of offence under IPC was a condition precedent for registering the FIR.

This contention cannot also be accepted in view of language of clause (x) of Section 3(1) of the Act, though it may be so with reference to section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

At this stage, it has been suggested that the petitioner is willing to put an end to the matter by regretting for the alleged occurrence, as he has retired.

Learned counsel for the complainant seeks time to take instructions in this regard.

List again on 11.1.2006."

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client is not willing to accept the apology.

In view of the above, no further order is called for.

The petition is dismissed.

This order will not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

January 11, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

'gs' Judge

Crl.Rev.No.546 of 2003 (O&M)

Mr. PPS Duggall, Advocate.

Mr. GS Bhandari, DAG,Pb.

Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocat.e

In view of order passed today in Crl.M.No.52914 M of 2002, this petition is also dismissed.

January 11, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

'gs' Judge

Crl. Appeal No.111-SB of 1993

Jagat Singh and another v. State of Haryana Mr. KS Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

Appellants Jagat Singh and Narinder Singh have challenged their conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Case of the prosecution is that on 1.6.1987, Ishwar Chand, Taxi driver of Taxi Fiat bearing No.CHZ-64 belonging to Attar Singh, was present at Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt. Three persons with two children hired the taxi in the presence of Ishwar Chand's brother Narinder Kumar and one Mohan Sagar for going to Bhiwani. Ishwar Chand never returned and a report of his missing was lodged with Ambala Cantonement Police by his cousin Raj Kumar on 13.6.1987. During investigation, the appellants were apprehended by the police on 1.12.1987 moving the said vehicle with a fake number plate HYG-5190. The Engine number and Chassis number were comparable to CHZ-64. Disclosure statement was made that after hiring the taxi, the accused strangulated to death the taxi driver Ishwar Chand with a rope and threw him in the Canal Sunder Sub Branch Bara Chappar.

After investigation, the appellants were challaned and were charged under sections 302/364/392/34 IPC. Co-accused Naresh who was granted bail, jumped bail and was declared proclaimed offender during the trial.

Prosecution examined Rulda Ram, Draftsman PW-1, Attar Singh PW-2, Rekha Gupta PW-3, Prem Singh, Sub Inspector PW-4, Narinder Kumar, Head Constable PW-5, Kapil Dev, PW-6, Ashok Kumar PW-7, Narinder Kumar son of Om Parkash PW-8, Som Nath, Head Constable PW-9, Rattan Singh, Head Constable PW-10, Ram Chand PW- 11, Raj Kumar PW-12, Gurdip Singh PW-13, Ashok Kumar Nijhawan PW- 14, Sham Narain Head Constable PW-15, Suresh Chand PW-16, Mohan Sagar PW-17, Murari Lal PW-18 and Ranbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector PW-19.

The trial court acquitted the appellants of charge of kidnapping and murder by giving following reasons:- (i) There was no satisfactory evidence of accused appellants having hired taxi of Ishwar Chand. PW-8 Narinder Kumar, brother of the deceased and Mohan Sagar, PW-17, husband of sister of deceased's wife could not be believed in stating that the taxi was hired by the appellants in their presence.

(ii) Dead body of Ishwar Chand was never recovered.

Disclosure statement of the accused before the police while in custody was inadmissible in evidence.

(iii) No witness from the taxi stand was examined to link the identity of the accused as persons who hired the taxi.

The appellants have been convicted mainly on account of evidence of ASI Randhir Singh, PW-19 and SI Prem Singh, PW-4 to the effect that they over-powered the appellants alongwith the car with the fake number.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once prosecution case of the appellants hiring the car was rejected, the appellants could not be convicted. It was submitted that witnesses to the recovery Suresh Chand PW-16 and Murari Lal PW-18 had turned hostile. It was also submitted that charge under section 411 IPC was not made out as there was no evidence as to from whom the appellants received the vehicle and who had stolen the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that evidence of Randhir Singh, PW-19 and Prem Singh Sub Inspector PW-4 was independent evidence and there was no reason to reject the same, even if Suresh Chand, PW-16 and Murari Lal, PW-18 became hostile. He referred to the statement of Suresh Chand PW-16 to the effect that he had made a statement Ex.PY before the police that car was recovered from the possession of the appellants. He further submitted that the fact that car was recovered from the appellants and they were using fake number, was enough to show that the car had been stolen and even if charge under section 411 IPC was not made out, charge under section 379 IPC could be made out for which same sentence was provided.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

Evidence of PW-4 Prem Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-19 Randhir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, has been rightly believed by the trial court. Their evidence is quite natural and consistent. Conviction of the appellants is upheld and charge is altered to Section 379 IPC.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were aged 22 and 28 years respectively at the relevant time. The alleged offence was committed more than 18 years ago. The appellants are claimed to have undergone one and a half years and one year of imprisonment respectively. There is no appeal by the State against acquittal of the appellants under sections 364/302/392 IPC.

Having regard to all the circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to undergo RI for two years each.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

January 11, 2006 (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

'gs' Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.