A.B. Chaudhari, J. - (1.) (Oral) - These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2005 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2004 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in FIR No.114 dated 18.3.2004, registered under Sections 379, 398, 401 and 411 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City, Rohtak, by which the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 398 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each under Section 398 IPC, in default to undergo further RI for two years. In addition, accused-appellant Narender was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for further six months. FACTS:
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 18.3.2004, SHO Pawan Kumar was present at Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak along with other police personnel in a private vehicle. He received a secret information that three boys having a motorcycle, armed with knife, iron rod and chain of motorcycle, were attempting to commit robbery near Chamaria turning. He rushed to the place with the police personnel. No sooner did he reach the spot, he stopped the jeep. All the accused rushed towards jeep pointing knife, iron rod and chain and asked the inmates to hand over the belongings but they were overpowered at the spot and were interrogated. They disclosed their respective names. The recoveries of the weapons were made. The motorcycle was seized which was found to have been stolen by accused Sat Narain and Narender 3-4 days ago from Ganaur. Ruqa Ex.P1 was then sent to the Police Station City Rohtak and FIR Ex.P4 was accordingly registered. Rough site plan Ex.DB was prepared. Investigation was undertaken. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After completion of investigation, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by SHO Pawan Kumar and was sent to the court.
(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses including SHO Pawan Kumar. The prosecution closed its case. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Finally the learned trial Judge convicted them, as stated above. Hence, this appeal. ARGUMENTS:;