Mr. A.B. Chaudhari, J. (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:

4. In support of these two appeals, learned counsel for the respective appellants vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in both these appeals is perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. The counsel contended that the evidence of PW4 SHO Pawan Kumar and PW2 HC Jai Bhagwan was most unnatural, untrustworthy and liable to be rejected. The counsel contended that the very genesis of the prosecution case is wholly doubtful, in that there is no explanation coming forth from SHO Pawan Kumar as to how he endeavoured to perform his duty by hiring a private vehicle and then going to the spot with his alleged police officials. The theory that PW4 SHO Pawan Kumar had seen the entire incident and that the accused demanded the belongings from the inmates of the jeep was liable to disbelieved since PW2 was sitting at the back of the jeep and it was improbable that he would have heard the alleged conversation of the demand of the belongings. The counsel then contended that there is hardly any evidence about attempt to commit robbery since Pawan Kumar did not say a word in his evidence that any demand was made from him. The counsel, therefore, contended that no offence could be made out or could be said to have been proved against the appellants and therefore, they are liable to be acquitted.

5. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals contended that the appellants have undergone sufficient sentence and since there is conviction recorded in the other case against the appellants, it is necessary to make an order of running of sentences concurrently