Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 667 (PNJ)

Surender Alias Sunder v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-27

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Appellant was convicted for an offence under Sec.398 of the indian Penal Code (`ipc for short) and under Sec.25 of the Arms Act,1959 vide judgment dated 14.9.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Vide order dated 15.9.2004, the Additional Sessions Judge Hisar sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence under Sec.398 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as fine and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 . The substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-Surender @ Sunder. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:- "2. The prosecution story as unfolded by the challan is that the police party headed by Rajender Singh Inspector, CIA staff, Hansi was on patrol duty on 1.6.2003 on Hansi-Bhatol road at `tpoint on Kulana turning when a secret information was received that four youngsters armed with deadly weapons were trying to rob the vehicles in the area of Bhatol. The accused had a Maruti Car No. DL4ca/1489, which they used to park in front of the vehicles passing through that road to force the passersby to stop so as to loot them. Considering the information to be reliable, the Inspector formed a raiding party. The red light of the Government vehicle was got removed and after applying mud on the number plate and word "police", the police party set out for the disclosed spot. Some persons were asked to become witnesses but showing their inability, they had slipped away. When the police party reached near `t point on Hansi-Barwala road, a Maruti car was abruptly came in front of the official police jeep thereby forcing the driver to stop the police jeep. Four young boys equipped with pistols came out of the Maruti car with intent to rob the police party but on seeing the police party in the jeep, they got perplexed and started running away. Two, out of them, were overpowered while the remaining two escaped away under the cover of darkness. Four young boys equipped with pistols came out of the Maruti car with intent to rob the police party but on seeing the police party in the jeep, they got perplexed and started running away. Two, out of them, were overpowered while the remaining two escaped away under the cover of darkness. The overpowered boys disclosed their names as Surender @ Sunder and Sukhbir @ Sukha and those of two escaped companions as Narender @ Mota and Rampal Saini. On search, a pistol of 12 bore alongwith a live cartridge and a pistol of 315 bore alongwith a live cartridge were recovered from accused Surender and Sukhbir respectively. Sketches of the pistols were prepared. The pistols and the cartridges were converted into parcels and were sealed with the seal RS and the sealed parcels wee taken into possession by the police. The seal after use was handed over to SI Jagdish Chand. The Maruti car was also taken into its possession by the police. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court against the accused under section 398/401 IOC and 25 of the Arms Act. 3. After completion of codal formalities, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Sh. Lal Chand, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi and eventually this case was assigned to this Court for disposal. 4. On 9.9.2003, on being charged under Sections 398/401 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. " 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sec.398 ipc but has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 1.6.2003 and sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant may be reduced to already undergone by him. 3. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the appellant, who was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Sec.398 ipc and is in custody since 1.6.2003, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the appellant. 4. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sec.398 IPC and Sec.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. 4. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Sec.398 IPC and Sec.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, subject to deposit of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.