PREM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Sections 398 and 393, Indian Penal Code, and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the first count and 4 years' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story is that Chet Ram P. W. 2 is running a small grocer's shop in village Pauli. On the night intervening 25th and 26th of January, 1974, at about 11 P. M. he was checking the accounts when one Fateh son of Ganeshi P. W. 3 was also present there. Prem appellant along with two co-accused appeared at the door of the shop. The two co-accused stayed out, the appellant entered the shop, wiped out a pistol and asked Chet Ram to surrender all the cash that was in his possession. Chet Ram was, the scene. In the scuffle both the appellant. In the meantime, the two co-accused of the appellant had run away from the scene. In the scuffle both the appellant and Chet Ram came out of the shop and the appellant was dispossessed of the pistol, which he was carrying at that time. He was kept in the village Chopal for the night and on the following morning Chet Ram and Fateh took him towards the police station. On the way they met Sub-Inspector Nathu Ram P. W. 9 and produced the appellant before him.

(3.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant apart from criticising the statements given by the prosecution witnesses has urged that the defence evidence of the appellant had been closed for no valid reasons. The learned Judge has observed that because of the reasons mentioned in a separate order, the defence of the appellant had been closed.