Harjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 477 Of 1998.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9/13.03.98 of the Designated Court, Ambala in S.C.No. 51 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9/13.03.98 of the Designated Court, Ambala in S.C.No. 51 of 1991)
Petitioner: Harjit Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 477 Of 1998.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9/13.03.98 of the Designated Court, Ambala in S.C.No. 51 of 1991)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9/13.03.98 of the Designated Court, Ambala in S.C.No. 51 of 1991)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 21, 1998
Appearances:
R.S. Sodhi and Kuldip Singh, Advocates for the appellants
Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Respondent.
Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 307, 392, 397, 332, 457 read with Arms Act, 1959 – Sec-tion 27 and TADA Act, 1986 – Section 5 – theft in medical store – Seeing Assistant sub-inspector approaching; accused started car and tried to knock him down – One of the person sitting in car also started firing – ASI firing shots from his revolver. Held that there was no reason to differ with view taken by Designated Court, which has given good reason to accept the evidence.
(Para 2, 3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 307, 392, 397, 332, 457 read with Arms Act, 1959 – Sec-tion 27 and TADA Act, 1986 – Section 5 – theft in medical store – Seeing Assistant sub-inspector approaching; accused started car and tried to knock him down – One of the person sitting in car also started firing – ASI firing shots from his revolver. Held that there was no reason to differ with view taken by Designated Court, which has given good reason to accept the evidence.
(Para 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.
1. The appellants are challenging their conviction under Sec-tions 457, 392, 397, 307 and 332 all read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 5 of the TADA and Section 27 of the Arms Acts.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of ASI – Karam Singh – PW 3 and Head Constable – Tarvin-der Singh – PW 5, who were the eye-witnesses and that of P.C. Goel, who was working as an assistant in the Alembic Medical Store, situated near Sirhand Club, Ambala cantt. The evidence of P.C. Goel – PW 4 clearly establishes that a theft of medicines worth Rs. 1,12,000 took place in the Alembic Medical Store. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses clearly establishes that on seeing PW 3 – Karam Singh approaching towards them, the accused started their car and tried to knocked down PW 3 – Karam Singh, who was approaching them on scooter. The evidence also establish-es that the person sitting in the car started firing at them and therefore ASI – Karam Singh was required to fire three shots from his revolver.
3. The Designated Court has considered their evidence and given good reasons to accept it. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Designated court. Once their evidence is be-lieved, all the offences alleged against them stand established.
4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
1. The appellants are challenging their conviction under Sec-tions 457, 392, 397, 307 and 332 all read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 5 of the TADA and Section 27 of the Arms Acts.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of ASI – Karam Singh – PW 3 and Head Constable – Tarvin-der Singh – PW 5, who were the eye-witnesses and that of P.C. Goel, who was working as an assistant in the Alembic Medical Store, situated near Sirhand Club, Ambala cantt. The evidence of P.C. Goel – PW 4 clearly establishes that a theft of medicines worth Rs. 1,12,000 took place in the Alembic Medical Store. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses clearly establishes that on seeing PW 3 – Karam Singh approaching towards them, the accused started their car and tried to knocked down PW 3 – Karam Singh, who was approaching them on scooter. The evidence also establish-es that the person sitting in the car started firing at them and therefore ASI – Karam Singh was required to fire three shots from his revolver.
3. The Designated Court has considered their evidence and given good reasons to accept it. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Designated court. Once their evidence is be-lieved, all the offences alleged against them stand established.
4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
