RANDHIR @ RANDHIR PAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2016-10-80
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 06,2016

Randhir @ Randhir Pal And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.S.Khehar,J. - (1.) The instant criminal appeal by special leave, was originally filed by eight of the accused namely Randhir A2, Amrit - A3, Vijay Kumar - A4, Satyawan - A5, Rajesh - A6, Lakhmi Ram - A7, Shiv Narain - A8 and Manoj - A11.
(2.) By this Court's order dated 22.2.2010, notice was issued only with reference to the appeal preferred by A2, A4, A7, A8 and A11. The special leave petition preferred by the remaining accused was dismissed.
(3.) The details of the occurrence under reference, emerges from the statement of Raj Mal - PW7, who had made a complaint on the date of occurrence itself - 26.11.2002. In the complaint, he had asserted, that he himself and his two brothers, namely, Randhir - PW8 and Laxman (the deceased), were present at their shop at 8.30 a.m. At 8.40 a.m., six of the accused namely Satpal - A1, Amrit - A3, Satyawan s/o Baru Ram - A5, Rajesh - A6, Rajinder s/o Jita - A9, and Rajinder s/o Baru - A10, entered their shop. They were carrying a country made pistol, knives and gandasas (axes). In the complaint it was also asserted, that Satpal - A1 fired a shot with the pistol in his possession, which hit the chest of the complainant's brother - Laxman. He further claimed, that Rajinder s/o Jita - A9 gave a gandasa blow on the left cheek of the deceased Laxman. And that, Satyawan - A5 gave a gandasa blow on the left shoulder of Laxman. He also asserted, that Amrit - A3 inflicted a knife blow on the forehead of Laxman, and further that, Rajinder s/o Baru - A10 inflicted a gandasa blow on the left ear of Laxman. Having committed the aforesaid assault, it was maintained by the complainant, that the aforesaid six accused came out of the shop. It was also pointed out, that at that juncture, Randhir - A2, Vijay Kumar - A4, Lakhmi Ram - A7, Shiv Narain - A8, and Manoj - A11, were standing guard outside the premises of the shop. They were preventing persons from entering the shop, as also, passersby from moving on the street in front of the shop.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.