In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

1. CRA-D-1000-DB-2013 Reserved on: 09.01.2025 Date of Decision: 24.01.2025 Ashok @ Gunga @ Sarpanch and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent

2. CRA-D-111-DB-2013 (O&M)

Naresh @ Pappu ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Argued by: Ms. Ishima Randhawa, Advocate for the appellants (amicus curiae).

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, DAG, Haryana.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra)

are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 15.10.2012, upon Sessions Case bearing No.77 of 2008/2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 460 of the IPC, besides under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts Ashok @ Gunga, Naresh @ Pappu, Tutia and Prem @ Risalu for an offence punishable under Section 460 of the IPC, whereas, he convicted the appellant Naresh @ Pappu for an offence punishable under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. Moreover, the remaining co-accused namely Naresh @ Nareshi and Pappu were acquitted from the charges (supra), as became drawn against them. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of 22.10.2012, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.

“Xxx Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convicts Ashok @ Gunga, Naresh @ Pappu, Tutia and Prem @ Risalu are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each, under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Naresh @ Pappu is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

Xxx”

3. The above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently qua appellant Naresh @ Pappu. The period spent in prison by the convicts, thus during investigation or trial, was, in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C., ordered to be set off from the above imposed substantive sentence(s) of imprisonment, upon the convicts.

4. Since all the accused-convicts became aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, became aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, thereupons they chose to institute thereagainst their respective criminal appeals, before this Court i.e. CRA-D-1000-DB-2013 and CRA-D-111-DB-2013.

5. The State of Haryana has not challenged the verdict of acquittal against the other co-accused namely Naresh @ Nareshi and Pappu, either before this Court or before the Hon’ble Apex Court, as such the verdict of acquittal rendered qua them has acquired binding and conclusive effect.

Factual Background

6. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex.P39 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex.P39 are, that on 17.5.2007, an information from Police Post New Bus Stand, Rohtak was received in Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak through telephone to the effect that Ravi @ Monu son of Ramesh Kumar, resident of Uttam Vihar, Rohtak, was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak owing to fire arm injur