L.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, I am disposing of two criminal appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 42 -SB of 2004 filed by convict Gian Singh and Crl. Appeal No. 76 -SB of 2004 filed by convict Mukhtiyar Singh because both these appeals have arisen out of a single case.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Prabhu Dayal lodged FIR on 01.05.2002 by moving application Annexure P -A dated 30.04.2002. The complainant alleged in the application that he is resident of Village Brijwari, District Mathura. He came to sell his wheat at Hodal. Dr. Jagdish of complainant's village was running a clinic at Hodal. The complainant, along with Dr. Jagdish, went to Mandi, where Nepal Singh (co -accused of the Appellants, since acquitted) was selling vegetables. The complainant and Dr. Jagdish purchased some tomatoes from Nepal Singh and started eating the same there. In the meanwhile, they saw that some persons were purchasing charas from Nepal Singh. Out of curiosity, the complainant inquired about the said substance. Nepal Singh gave small quantity of charas to the complainant. Thereupon, Appellant Mukhtiyar Singh, who was posted as Constable Gunman to Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Hodal, and Appellant Gian Singh, who was posted as Driver of SDM, Hodal, came and caught hold of the complainant and Dr. Jagdish and forcibly took them in the vehicle of SDM to a side room in SDM's residence. Both the Appellants threatened the complainant and his companion to implicate them in a false case and demanded Rs. 30,000/ -. The matter was settled at Rs. 25,000/ -. The complainant was taken on motorcycle to his commission agent. The complainant borrowed Rs. 20,000/ -from commission agent and gave the same to the Appellants, whereas the Appellants also took away Rs. 5,000/ -from the purse of Dr. Jagdish. Thereafter, the complainant and his companion were released at 10:00 P.M. The complainant met Superintendent of Police, Faridabad and thereafter, presented application Ex.P -A to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) - Rohtash Singh, who made his own endorsement on it and sent it to Police Station, Hodal, where FIR was registered. DSP Rohtash Singh investigated the case. During investigation, complainant Prabhu Dayal made statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Code of Criminal Procedure) alleging that on 26.04.2002, he had come to sell wheat at the shop of his commission agent Jai Parkash in Hodal. The complainant went to Dr. Jagdish at his clinic and told him that small quantity of charas was needed for a Saint. Dr. Jagdish took the complainant to accused Nepal Singh and told him about requirement of charas. Nepal Singh asked them to come at about 3/4:00 P.M. Then message from Nepal Singh was received at the clinic of Dr. Jagdish at about 06:00 P.M. Complainant and Dr. Jagdish then went to Nepal Singh and collected small quantity of charas from him. In the meanwhile, both the Appellants also came there and caught both of them i.e. complainant and Dr. Jagdish and took them in official vehicle of SDM to a side room in PWD Rest House, Hodal. Both the Appellants took out Rs. 730/ -from personal search of Dr. Jagdish and Rs. 150/ -from the complainant. Then they made demand of Rs. 30,000/ -, which was reduced to Rs. 25,000/ -. Gian Singh took the complainant on motorcycle to Anaj Mandi, Hodal, from where the complainant borrowed Rs. 20,000/ -from his commission agent and gave the same to Gian Singh, who, on reaching back the Rest House, paid the said amount of Rs. 20,000/ -(which was in the form of currency notes of Rs. 500/ -denomiation) to Mukhtiyar Singh, who counted the same and kept it with him. Out of the amount of Rs. 730/ -of Dr. Jagdish, the Appellants retained Rs. 600/ -and gave back Rs. 130/ -and also gave back the amount of Rs. 150/ -of complainant to him and then both of them were released at 10:00 P.M. Dr. Jagdish also made similar statement during investigation.
(3.) ONE Jwahar Singh also made statement during investigation that Nepal Singh had made extra -judicial confession before him that he, in conspiracy with both the Appellants, had committed the aforesaid occurrence. Details thereof were also stated.;