RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) THROUGH this order, four appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 452 SB of 2007 (Krishan v. State of Haryana), 500 SB of 2007 (Davender v. State of Haryana), 886 SB of 2007 (Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana) and 968 SB of 2007 (Sombir v. State of Haryana) are being disposed of as they arise out of a common judgment, leading to conviction of four different appellants.
(2.) THE appellant in each case is accused of offences under Sections 395, 397, 506 IPC. In addition, appellant Surender @ Baba is also accused of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. They all stand convicted for the respective offences alleged against them and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years coupled with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each case. They have filed the above noted separate appeals before this Court. It may also need a notice that except for appellant, Sunil, rest of the appellants have been ordered to be released on bail. These appeals, though of the year 2007, were set down for hearing, while declining the prayer for bail made by appellant, Sunil. The appellants are accused of having committed a dacoity at farm house of one Satdev Tyagi on 30.6.2003, which is situated on Murthal alongwith G.T. Road. On the said date, the complainant, Satdev Tyagi, was sleeping at his Farm House. When he woke up to urinate at middle of night, he noticed the appellants, who were seen armed with deadly weapons like gun, revolver, pistol etc. The complainant enquired about their identity, when they surrounded him. On the asking of appellant, Surender @ Baba, appellant Sunil overpowered driver, Jagmal, who was sleeping on a near-by cot. Appellant Surender thereafter asked his accomplices to see as to how many persons were present at the Farm House. The complainant, on being overpowered, was asked to disclose the place where the money and gun had been kept. The complainant was taken from room to room by appellants, Surender and Davender. At that time, complainant noticed that all his servants had been detained by the appellants in a tractor garage. A key was brought by appellant Surender from the servant and then the complainant was taken inside the room where his house hold goods were lying. One microscope, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash, one HMT watch, one electric torch, one mobile phone and its charger were found lying in the room, which were taken by the appellants. At that time, appellants Surender and Davender were present inside whereas remaining appellants were standing outside the room. The complainant was taken to a room near his cot where his shirt was lying. The appellants took out the key from the pocket of the shirt and then took the complainant to the garage where he was tied with a rope. The appellants, while fleeing, took the car of the complainant wherein .38 bore revolver alongwith 10 live cartridges were also lying alongwith the documents of the car and arms licence etc. While leaving the place, the appellants also advanced threat of life to the complainant in case he raised any alarm. It seems that all the appellants were later arrested. They are alleged to have made some disclosure statements, leading to their prosecution. They were ultimately convicted for the offences as alleged and sentenced as already noticed. The appellants, in their defence, have pleaded their false implication and refuted the allegations made against them. They, however, did not produce any evidence in support of their defence. The counsel appearing for the appellants have taken me through the evidence led by the prosecution. The counsel have mainly raised three fold submissions. It is first submitted that the case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence of the complainant alone as the other eye witnesses have resiled from their respective versions and so were declared hostile. It is accordingly pleaded that it will not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants on the solitary account given by the complainant. The counsel would further submit that complainant has not conducted himself well while deposing as he even could not properly identify the appellants before the Court. The counsel would, thus, pray that conviction of the appellants can not be maintained. The counsel would further urge that the alleged recovery shown from the appellants (except appellant, Davender) is doubtful in the absence of any independent witness having been joined at the time of recovery, though it was effected from the place where number of witnesses were available. To further strengthen their arguments, the counsel would also refer to the fact that recovery of currency notes amounting to Rs. 1,000/- would not be of much significance as the same can easily be fastened there being no specific identifiable mark on it to relate it to the amount robbed. They would, thus, say that these recoveries were implanted on the appellants just to strengthen the case of the prosecution.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the case of prosecution is well supported by the evidence given by the complainant, which is trust-worthy and reliable. According to him, version of the complainant would find support from the recovery which is effected from the appellants, included car, which they had taken at the time of committing dacoity. He accordingly pleads that conviction of the appellants has rightly been recorded and so should be maintained.;