400 17 49 Criminal Revision N1220 of 2009 1 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision N1220 of 2009 Decided on3002009 m Q 0 AjitSinghand others Petitioners 0 I Versus C5 State of Haryana Respondent Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE KC PURI I C45 Present Mr S1Yadav Advocate for the petitioners Mr Vikas ChaudharyA A G Haryana 7 Z K C PURI J This is a revision petition against the judgmentdated 42009 passedby Shri Naresh Kumar Iearned Additional Sessions Judge411Bhiwani vide which the appealpreferredby the accusec revisionists againstthe judgmentdated 11 12005 and order of sentence dated 121 05 passedby Shri Mahender Singh Iearned Sub Divisional Judicial MagistrateLoharu holdingthem guiltyunder Section 365 of the 1ndian PenaI Code n short the IPCl and to undergorigorousimprisonmentfor a periodof 2Vz years and to pay a fine of Rs001 each for the commission of the oHence punishable Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 401 CriminalRevision Nl 220 of 2009 2 under Section 365 IPC In default of paymentof fine they were directed to further undergoimprisonmentfor fifteen days was dismissecl The brief facts of the prosecutioncase are that on 71998 ASl SajjanSingh along with other police officials was m present at Railway Chowk Loharu on routine patrollingand 0 checkingwhere one Anil Kumar met him and got recorded his C statement alleging therein that there was a hearingin case FIR 0 I No133 dated 261 998 under Section 365 IPC Police Station Loharu in the Court at Loharu He came to appear in the said case Z alongwith Mahender and his maternal uncle Harbagh At about C 1 1 O al his coaccused Mandroopcame and took him out of I Court Campus where a jeepbearingregistrationN02CG7997 otj make Commander was alreadypresent at the road wherein 7 Mashiyaalias Rishiaya Shiv Lal Ajit Mahabir and Om Parkash Z were sitting They started beatinghim with slaps and fists On hearinghue and cry some persons standingthere threw stones on the jeep but the driver after puttingthe jeep in motion spedit away towards Rajasthat After coveringdistance of about half kilo meter near RailwaycrossingSurajgarhroad when the jeep became slow due to speed breaker then he managedto escape after getting himself freecl The motive behind his abduction was pendencyof Iitigation of accused with Surender Singh Sarpanchand his son On the basis of aforesaid statement the instant case was registered Statements of the Pws were recorded Accused were arrested After Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 Criminal Revision No220 of 2009 3 completionof investigationchallan against the accused was presentedfor trial On appearance of the petitionersin the Coun copiesof the documents were suppliedto them under rules Findinga primafacie case chargeunder Section 365 of the IPC was framed againstthe petitionersto which the petitioners 0 C pleadednot guiltyand claimed trial X C5 Prosecutlotl ill order to bring home guilt of the examined DrRaj Karan PWe1 l Mahender PW Z Man SinghPW31 ASl SajjanSingh PW41 InspectorRam Rattan as PVVSI and HarbhajPWm61ManojKumar and the evidence was closed bythe Public Prosecutor I otl The petitionerswere examined under Section 313 CrC and all the incriminating evidence was put to them They m Z denied the allegationsand pleadedtheir innocence tl The petitioners tendered documents in defence The Iearned trial Court held the petitionersguiltyunder Section 365 ofthe IPC and sentenced them as narrated above The petitionersthereafter filed appeal before Iearned Additional SessionsJudge Bhiwani who findingno merit therein dismissed the same vide judgmentdated 452009 Still feelingdissatisfied with the above said judgments of conviction the have preferredthe instant reviSIon petition 1have heard Iearned counsel for the petitionersand the Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403 Criminal Revision No1220 of 2009 4 Iearned State counsel and have gone throughthe records of the case The Iearned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the complainantin this case has not been examined thoughon account of his death The motive for the occurrence has not been proved The independent who were presentat the 0 C time of allegedoccurrence has not been examinecl The testimonyof X C5 Mahender PW2I and Harbhaj V61 is not sufficient to conclude I the guiltof the revisionists Z have carefullyconsidered the said submission but do not find any force in the same L Complainanthas died priorto the examination and as such I otl his nonexaminatlon is not fatal to the prosecutioncaselahender Pl21 and Harbhaj N8I have supponedthe case of the vm Z prosecutionon all material particularsand they have been cross Il examinedat Iengthbut nothingcould be broughton the file to discard their sworn testimony A suggestionhas been putto HarbhajPV 61that t is correct that both the partieshave severe typeof enmityl So lt cannot be said that motive was not there for kidnappingthe Both the Courts below have givena concurrent finding regardinguilt of the accused and no groundfor interference in that concurrentfindingregardinguiltof the accused is made out There were correspondinginjurieson the bodyof the complainantwhich Iend further suppottto the prosecutionversion Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 404 Criminal Revision No 1220 of 2009 5 there is a delayin Iodgingthe FIR and in that case prosecutionIS 1 doubtful have carefullyconsidered the said argumentsbut do not find any force tm ThIs aspect of the case has been dealt in by both the 0 Courts belowThe delaystands fullyexplainedin the circumstances 0 C mentioned above So above said argument IS without any X substance 0 I Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted Z ingredientof the offence under Section 365 IPC arenotmadeout It IS submitted that there is no allegationthat complainantwas kidnappedand abducted with intention to cause him secretlyand I oll wrongfullyconfinement So in view of authorityin Dhian Singh VS State of Puniab 2000141RCR ICriminall 414 the revisionists V Z cannot be convicted under Section 365 IPC have carefullyconsidered the said submission also but do not find any force Anil Kumar has categorically stated that there was enmity between the partiesand the accusedevisionists have forciblytaken him The intention of the revisionists was simplyto secretlyand wrongfully confined him So it cannot be said that Section 365 IPC IS not made out The authority Ill Dhian Sinqhs case supral does not helpfulto the petitioners rather is distinguishable on the facts of the presentcase Lastly Iearned counSeI for the petitionershas submitted Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 405 Criminal Revision N1220 of 2009 6 4 that six persons have been sentenced to undergotwo and half years rigorousimprisonment The occurrence relates to the year 1998 prayerhas been made for reduction in sentence have carefullyconsidered the said submission m Since the occurrence relates to the year 1998 and the 1 petitioners are undergoingprotractedtrial so the sentence under 0 C Section 365 1PC stands reduced to one year instead of 21z years as X awarded bythe trial Court 0 I VVith the modification l the sentence the revISIOn Z petitionstands disposedof accordingly A copy of this judgmentbe sent to the trial Court for strict compliance I 08 Octobeo 2009 1 JUDGE 7 Z Qm llr llt 1r Ie 1 IJ JY Pvl b I Anita 2013.03.25 13: 10 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document