Pankaj And Anr vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6212 P&H

CRA-S-2452-SB of 2009 and                                               1
CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                          CRA-S-2452-SB of 2009
                          DATE OF DECISION :- July 06, 2022


Pankaj and another                                          ...Appellants

                          Versus

State of Haryana                                            ...Respondent

                          CRA-S-2-SB of 2010


Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar and another                           ...Appellants

                          Versus

State of Haryana                                            ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:-   Mr. Atul Prataap Dhankar, Advocate
            for Mr. Brijender Dhankar, Advocate for the appellants
            in CRA-S-2452-SB of 2009.

            Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate
            for appellant No. 2 in CRA-S-2-SB of 2010.

            Mr. S.S. Pannu, DAG, Haryana.
                        ***

My this order shall dispose of two Criminal Appeals bearing

CRA-S-2452-SB of 2009 filed by Pankaj son of Shri Raj Singh, resident of

House No. 314/44, Panjabi Chowk, Narwana, District Jind and Jagroop son of

Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Palawa, Police station Uchana, District

Jind and CRA-S-2-SB of 2010 filed by Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar son of Shri

Sher Singh, resident of village Dudheri, Police Station Sadar Kaithal, District

Kaithal and Sanjay @ Kala son of Hoshiar Singh, resident of Railway Colony,

Narwana, District Jind, all of them being accused in F.I.R. No. 156 dated

5.7.2007 under Sections 399 and 402 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms

1 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

Act registered with Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

Briefly stated the facts of the case as per prosecution story are that

on 5.7.2007 at about 10.15 P.M in the area of village Mirjapur within

jurisdiction of Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, accused

Pankaj, Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar, Jagroop, Sanjay alias Kala and Sandeep alias

Bachi (since declared juvenile and sent to Juvenile Justice Board for facing

trial) were making preparations for committing dacoity in a Kothi situated near

Gurukul, Kurukshetra and a police party led by Sh. Desh Raj in pursuance of

secret information had gone there, overheard all such accused making

preparations in that regard and then apprehended them. Accused Pankaj was

found in possession of .315 bore pistol along with a live cartridge of same

bore. Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar was found in possession of an iron pipe. Sanjay

alias Kala having an iron rod, Jagroop having a danda whereas Sandeep alias

Bachi was empty handed. All the accused were arrested and weapons carried

by them were taken into police possession. Ruqa was sent to police station for

registration of F.I.R. Site plan of place of incident was prepared. Further

investigation in the case was carried out. On completion of investigation

challan against all the four accused namely Pankaj, Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar,

Jagroop and Sanjay alias Kala was filed in the Court whereas Sandeep alias

Bachi found to be juvenile was forwarded to Juvenile Justice Board for trial.

After presentation of challan in the Court of JMIC, Kurukshetra

he supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the challan to the accused

free of costs and finding that offences were triable by the Court of Sessions

committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra who in

turn assigned it to Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.

After receipt of the case by way of assignment, learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra framed formal charge for offences under Sections

2 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four accused and in

addition charge for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed

against accused Pankaj. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and

claimed trial.

During the course of its evidence the prosecution examined ASI

Bhopal Singh as PW1, Constable Malkiyat Singh as PW2, HC Hans Raj as

PW3, HC Mukesh Kumar as PW4, Inspector Aman Kumar as PW5, Constable

Baldev Singh as PW6, Shri Jai Parkash as PW7, ASI Jagdish Chander as PW8

and Inspector Des Raj as PW9.

PW1 ASI Bhopal Singh deposed that on 5.7.2007 while posted at

Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra on receipt of Ruqa Ex.P1,

he had recorded formal F.I.R Ex.P2 making endorsement Ex.P3 on the Ruqa

and then sent special report to Ilaqa Magistrate, S.P. And DSPO (HQ),

Kurukshetra.

PW2 Constable Malkiyat Singh who had delivered the special

reports handed over to him by ASI Bhopal Singh to learned Ilaqa Magistrate

and S.P. And DSPO (HQ), Kurukshetra deposed in that regard.

PW3 HC Hans Raj testified that on 13.7.2007 while posted as

Armourer at Police lines, Kurukshetra he had tested country made pistol,

which was in a sealed envelope handed over to him by SI Desh Raj. He had

opened the envelope and after checking he found the country made pistol

contained therein to be fit to fire. Thereafter, submitted his report Ex.P4.

PW4 HC Mukesh Kumar stated that he had prepared scaled site

plan of place of occurrence Ex. P6 on 14.7.2007.

PW5 Inspector Aman Kumar then posted as SHO Police Station,

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra deposed that on 26.7.2007 while posted

as such, on completion of investigation he had prepared challan in this case

3 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

which was filed in the Court.

PW6 constable Baldev Singh deposed that on 6.7.2007 he was

member of a police party headed by SI Desh Raj of CIA staff, Kurukshetra. SI

Desh Raj had interrogated accused Pankaj, Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar, Sandeep

alias Bachi who had suffered disclosure statements with regard to having

committed thefts along with their co-accued and concealment of stolen

property which was within their exclusive possession.

PW7 Jai Parkash, Reader to District Magistrate, Kurukshetra

proved the sanction accorded by District Magistrate, Kurukshetra for

prosecution of accused Pankaj alias Montu for offence under Section 25 of the

Arms Act as Ex.P12.

PW9 ASI Jagdish Chander, who was member of the raiding party

headed by then SI Desh Raj and SI Desh Raj, promoted as Inspector, fully

supported the prosecution story with regard to the accused having assembled to

make preparations for committing dacoity and being found in possession of

weapons and further they being involved in several other cases of robberies.

During the course of prosecution evidence, it relied upon several

documents also.

Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in

which all the incriminating evidence was put to them but they denied the

allegations contending that they were innocent and had not committed any

offence; no weapon had been recovered from them and false recovery has been

planted upon them by the police.

The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing arguments and going through the record, learned

Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has

successfully proved its charge against the accused and convicted all the four

4 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

accused for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and in addition accused

Pankaj was convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act vide

judgment dated 18.8.2009. The case was adjourned for hearing the accused on

the point of quantum of sentence and in terms of order dated 3.9.2009 all four

accused namely Pankaj, Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar, Jagroop and Sanjay alias

Kala were sentenced as follows :-

Section Sentence 399 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year 402 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-

and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 year

Accused Pankaj alias Montu was sentenced to undergo 3 years

rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act and to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple

imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of their conviction and order

of sentence, the four accused convicts have preferred appeals before this Court.

The appeals were admitted for regular hearing and on applications having been

filed by the appellants/accused for suspension of their sentence of

imprisonment during the pendency of the appeal, the remaining sentence of

appellants was suspended during the pendency of the appeals.

Now the appeals have come up for final hearing.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned State

counsel besides going through the record.

5 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

At they very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant Sanjay alias Kala alias Langda has stated that he has already

completed the sentence and has been released from custody on 16.3.2017. This

fact is fortified by the custody certificate placed on record today by the State

counsel. Therefore, the appeal qua Sanjay alias Kala alias Langda is taken to

have become infructous.

With regard to the remaining appellants accused learned counsel

representing them have stated that they do not challenge the judgment on the

point of conviction but they pray for grant of a lenient view as regards the

sentence. It is contended that appellant accused Pankaj was aged about 22

years, Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar was aged about 38 years whereas Jagroop was

aged about 24 years at the time of conviction and they have undergone

substantial period of imprisonment before being granted concession of

suspension of sentence and released on bail; they are poor persons; they be

given liberty to reform themselves and lead peaceful life along with their

families.

A perusal of the custody certificate placed on record by the State

counsel goes to show that Pankaj has undergone 2 years 2 months and 23 days

of imprisonment. He is not shown to be involved in any other criminal case

whereas Bhuria @ Rajesh Kumar has undergone 5 years 6 months and 15 days

and Jagroop has undergone 5 years 11 months and 20 days.

It is to be taken note of that the incident in this case has taken

place on 5.7.2007 i.e. about 15 years back. The accused convicts have already

undergone the substantial part of sentence. They want to spend rest of their life

by remaining on right side of law and not taking part in any criminal activity.

Therefore, in my considered view ends of justice can be adequately met if

accused convicts appellants are sentenced to imprisonment already

6 of 7

CRA-S-2-SB of 2010

undergone by them in this case. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is

upheld against the appellants whereas order of sentence qua Pankaj, Bhuria @

Rajesh Kumar and Jagroop is modified and they are sentenced to imprisonment

already undergone by them in this case, whereas, the fine part is kept as intact.

The appellant/accused are directed to deposit the amount of fine in the Court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra within one month from today, failing

which Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshtera shall issue warrants of arrest

against the appellants accused to make them undergo imprisonment in default

of payment of fine as awarded by the trial Court.

As such the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Necessary intimation be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Kuruksehtra for necessary compliance.

                                               (H.S. MADAAN)
                                                   JUDGE
July 06, 2022
p.singh



Whether speaking/reasoned                                   Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                          Yes/No




                                      7 of 7