SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Sukhbir Singh (in Crl. A. No. 650 of 1992) and 8 other accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 166 dated 22-9-1986 of the Police Station Ganaur and after investigation charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 148 and 452 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. After completion of the trial, appellant-Sukhbir Singh was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life besides paying a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The other accused persons were convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149 and sentenced to imprisonment for life besides paying a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. All the accused persons were also convicted under Ss. 326/149 and sentenced to three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each. Upon conviction under S. 148, I.P.C., the respondents were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and upon conviction under Ss. 324/149, I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for one year each. They were also convicted under Ss. 323/149 and sentenced to six months R.I. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeals filed by the accused persons were disposed of vide the judgment impugned in these appeals by which the conviction and sentence of Sukhbir Singh, appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. was upheld. The conviction and sentence of all the other accused persons under Ss. 302/149 was, however, set aside. Their convictions and sentences under Ss. 326, 323, 324 with the aid of S. 149, I.P.C. was also set aside. Detention already suffered by accused-Pala, Ram Chander, Behari, Baljit, Kidara, Raj, Darya and Tara was considered as sufficient sentence for their respective convictions and for their individual acts under Ss. 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. Pala, accused was further convicted under S. 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment besides paying a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Court found that the said accused has already undergone the sentence awarded.

(2.) Not satisfied with his conviction and sentence, accused-Sukhbir Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 650 of 1992 whereas the State of Haryana has filed S.L.P. against the acquittal of the rest of the accused persons. Leave has been granted in the SLP and as the respondents are represented, no separate notices have been issued to them. As accused-Ram Chander died after the judgment of the appellate Court, he has not been impleaded as a party-respondent in the SLP filed by the State. As Sukhbir Singh convict accused-appellant has wrongly been added a party-respondent in the appeal filed by the State, his name is deleted from the array of the respondents therein.

(3.) As the facts of the case and the question of law is common in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.