RAJINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eighteen appellants herein along with ten others were indicted for an incident that took place on 17/11/1985 in Village Lawa Khurd within the Police Station of Bahadurgarh in which three persons were killed and several injured. Against one of them a charge under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 ('act' for short) read with S. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also framed and therefore they were tried by a Designated court constituted under Section 9 of the Act. On conclusion of the trial, the court, while recording an order of acquittal against ten co-accused in respect of all the charges levelled against them, convicted the appellants under S. 148, 302/149 (three counts) , 326/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, two of the appellants were convicted under Section. 307 Indian Penal Code (two counts) and the remaining sixteen were convicted for the same offences with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. For the convictions so recorded the appellants were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, including life. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 16 of the Act.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed by the evidence led at the trial is as under: One Prem Raj was the owner of 19 kill as of land in Village Lawa Khurd. He died in May 1982 leaving behind a will whereby he had bequeathed that land to his only son Shri Krishan. Consequent upon Shri Krishan's death in April 1983 his wife Smt Krishna (Public Witness 17 became the owner thereof. While in possession of the land she entered into an agreement with Mange Ram (Public Witness 19 on 4/11/1985 for its sale for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and, on receipt of a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 out of the said amount at the time of execution of the deed of agreement, handed over the possession to Mange Ram. On 12/11/1985, the appellant Rajinder Singh, claiming himself to be one of the owners of the said land (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land') , as an heir of Prem Raj, and in possession thereof, lodged a complaint with the police alleging that Mange Ram and his men had criminally trespassed therein and destroyed the crops he had grownthereon. On that report Bahadurgarh Police Station registered a case being No. 532 dated 12/11/1985 against Mange Ram and others but it ultimately ended in their discharge as the police found, on investigation, the accusation to be false.

(3.) The prosecution version of the incident that took place on 17/11/1985 is that at or about 10 a. m. when Smt Krishna (Public Witness 13, niece of Mange Ram, her father Ran Singh (deceased) , her uncles Rattan Singh (deceased) and Dhan Singh, her cousin Satbir (deceased) , her sister Ms Kamlesh (Public Witness 14, her brother Balbir Singh (Public Witness 15 and her sisters-in-law Smt Rajo (Public Witness 16 and Smt Ramesh were cultivating their ancestral land, which is at a distance of one killa from the disputed land, Malak Ram and Ved Prakash (two of the appellants) came there (the disputed land) with two camel-ploughs. A few minutes thereafter the other accused persons came there in three tempos and one tractor armed with various weapons. Reaching there they asked Ved Prakash and Malak Ram as to why they had not started ploughing. On being so encouraged when they started ploughing the disputed land, Smt Krishna along with her eight companions went there and implored the accused not to plough as that land had been purchased and ploughed by them. Then Ram Karan (since acquitted) instigated the other accused to kill them. Immediately thereupon, the appellants Bhup Singh and Ishwar, who were two of the tempo drivers started their tempos and dashed against Rattan Singh, Ran Singh, Satbir Singh and Smt Kamlesh as a result of which they fell down. Then the other accused persons started hitting them with jailis, lathis, ballams and pharsas as a result of which Rattan Singh, Ran Singh and Satbir Singh fell down dead at the spot while others sustained injuries some of them grievous. All the appellants then left the place leaving behind two tempos and the camel-ploughs.