SUNIL KUMAR GARG - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant in the following manner :- Name of accused offence u / s sentence awarded Paramjeet Singh 394 IPC Four Years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000 /-,in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. 397/34 IPC Seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-,in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows :- On 10-3-1998 at about 4.30 p.m. PW3 Ved Prakash gave a Parcha-bayan, Ex. P/9 while he was in Hospital, to PW6 Phularam stating that he has a Maruti Car bering No. DBD 4559, Taxi (hereinafter referred to as the Taxi) and on 9-3-1998 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was standing at the Taxi Stand of Abhor (Haryana), two persons came there and asked him that they wanted to go to Chak IC in Rajasthan and he allowed these two persons to sit in the Taxi and the fare agreed to was Rs. 400/-. Out of these two persons, one person sat with him meaning thereby nearby his seat and other person sat in the back seat of the Taxi. They first went to Shivpur, from where they asked about the way of IC and in the midnight when they reached near the Punjab pool, then, the person, who was sitting behind his seat, took up iron rod and gave blow on his head and at that time when he was being beaten by the person, who was sitting behind his seat, another person sitting nearby him, caught him and thereafter, both threw him out of the Taxi and took away the Taxi and he was severaly injured and then, he was taken to the hospital, where he was admitted. He was got medically examined. On this Parchabayan Ex. P/9, FIR Ex. P/13 was chalked out and police started investigation. During investigation, PW6 Phularam came to know that these two persons are in lockup in Police Station Sapla District Rohtak. Then, he went there and met Mathu Ram. ASI and he was told by him that a Car was seized under Section 102, Cr. P.C. and the number of that Car is the same, which belongs to PW3 Ved Prakash. He recovered the Car through Ex. P/12. On being interrogated, it was told that the names of these two persons from whose possession Car in question was seized, are accused Paramjeet Singh and Siraj Ali. Note :- That accused Siraj Ali has been declared absconder and whole proceedings have been conducted in his absence. These two accused were arrested through Ex. P/21 and Ex. P/22. During investigation, accused Siraj Ali on 12-4-1998 gave information to PW6 Phularam about the place from where the Taxi was taken and the place where PW3 Ved Prakash was beaten. Similarly, accused appellant also gave information about the recovery of the iron rod, papers of the Taxi and driving license of Siraj Ali and that information was recorded in Ex. P/24 and pursuant to that information, articles were recovered through Ex. P/26. After investigation, police submitted challan against both the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar on 31-8-1999 framed charge under Section 394 and 397, IPC against the accused appellant Paramjeet Singh, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited 20 documents. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded. No evidence was produced in defence, but two documents were exhibited by the accused-appellant in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as stated above, holding inter-alia :- 1. That even in absence of identification parade, statement of PW3 Ved Prakash and PW9 Kewal Krishna, who have identified the accused-appellant for the first time in Court, is reliable. 2. That the evidence of PW8 Kitab Singh, who was ASI Police Station Maham District Rohtak is trustworthy. 3.That though accused-appellant was not charged specifically with the aid of Section 34, he can be convicted under Section 397/34, IPC. 4.That both accused Paramjeet Singh and Siraj Ali committed the robbery of the Taxi of PW3 Ved Prakash and they also beat PW3 Ved Prakash though grevious hurt was not caused by the present accused-appellant. 5.That the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 394 and 397/34, IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 9-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, the present appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Paramjeet Singh.
(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant :- 1. That the evidence of PW3 Ved Prakash and PW9 Kewal Krishna with respect to identification of accused in Court, is inadmissible in evidence and carries no weight, as no identification parade was held after the arrest of the accused-appellant. 2. That accused-appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 34, IPC for the offence under Section 397, IPC inasmuch as, no grevious injury was caused by accused-appellant on the person of PW3 Ved Prakash. 3. That in case the Court comes to the conclusion that any offence has been committed by the accused-appellant, lenient view be taken in awarding sentence to him. ;