AJIT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 08-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
"AJIT SINGH 
0 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
FEBRUARY 8, 1996 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860/TADA Act: 
Sections 392, 394, 397/!r-Two accused convicted for offences 
C under-Country-made Pistol not used in robbery, but presumably by way of 
self-defence-Conviction of appellant -Accused under Sections 397 and 394 
unsustainable and hence unjustified-Conviction under S.392 sustained--
However sentence reduced to five years impris01.zment-No appeal preferred 
by co-accused presumably due to pove1ty-He will also be entitled to the 
benefit of modification of sentence passed against the other accused in similar 
D circumstances. 
Slui Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, (1975] 1 SCC 797 and 
Piara Singh' v. State of M.P., [1992] Suppl. 3 SCC 45, relied on. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
782 of 1995. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and order dated 11.12.93 of the Designated 
Court, Sonipat in Sessions Case No. 106. of 1992, Sessions Trial No. 161 of 
1993. 
Sushil Kumar for the Appellant. 
LS. Goyal for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court delivered : 
This is an appeal filed by the appellant from Jail under Section 19 
of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
(hereinafter referred to as TADA). It appears that initially the charge-
sheet was submitted against the appellant and the ·co-accused Raj Pal 
under Section 394, 392 and 397 IPC and Section 5 of TADA Act. But at 
H the trial the accused stood charged for offences under Sections 392, 397 
318 
·-
1 
• 
-
ATITSINGHv. STATE 
• 
319 
and 394 IPC before the Designated Court, Rohtak at Sonepat. 
The prosecution case in short is that on 12.4.90 when PW 7, Suresh 
being accompanied by his brother PW 8, Subhash was going on a scooter 
to village Gadwal from Gohana, both the said accused suddenly appeared 
armed with pistol and they made an attempt to stop the scooter, but his 
brother Subhash did not allow to do so. The accused however caught hold 
of the scooter by its handle and pointed pistol on the back of Suresh urging 
him to handover whatever valuable was in his possession. Out of fear, 
Suresh handed ovet a purse containing Rs. 1775 and his wrist watch and 
the wrist watch of his brother Subhash was also removed by the other 
accused Rajpal forcibly. Thereafter, an attempt was made to snatch the 
scooter. PW 7, Suresh, then picked up an empty drum of milk and hit the 
accused Ajit with such drum. The accused Ajit thereafter opened fire from 
A 
B 
c 
the pistol at Suresh which hit the left. hand of Suresh and thumb and first 
finger of left hand of Suresh were injured. Suresh and Ajit grappled with 
each other. At that stage, the accused Ajit inflicted a tooth bite on the left D 
arm of Suresh and challenged both the brothers by firing the pistol but 
Suresh and Subhash could escape. On the next day, an FIR was lodged 
with the police station Baroda in the district Rohtak. 
According to the prosecution case, both the accused were arrested 
on 16.5.90 and at the instance of the accused, the wrist watches snatched E 
from PWs 7 and 8 were recovered on 18.5.90 which are stated to have been 
buried in a garden. It is also the prosecution case that both the accused 
did not agree to attend the test identification parade and as such test 
identification parade was not held. Considering the evidences adduced in 
this case, the learned Designated Court convicted both the accused for 
F 
offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and also under 
Section 394 IPC and passed a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment 
against both the accused and also a fine of Rs. 250 under Section 394 in 
default of making payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprison-
ment for three months. Both the said accused were also sentenced to 
undergo rigorous_ imprisonment for seven years for offences under Section G 
392 read with section 397 IPC. 
Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus cwiae 
for the appellant in this case, has submitted that an accused cannot be 
convicted under Section 397 IPC if he had not used a weapon. In support H 
320 
•SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[i996] 2 S.C.R. 
A of such contention, a decision of this Court in Shri Phool Kumar v'. Delhi 
Administration, [1975] 1 SCC 797. Mr. Sushil Kumar has also submitted 
that conviction under Section 397 IPC of co-accused who was unwarned, 
only indicates that there has been non application of mind to the facts o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.