Challenging the companyviction and sentence seven accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2004 and the High Court dismissed the appeal by companyfirming the companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
The appellants along with three others were tried for the charges under Sections 147/395/448 read with Section 149 IPC and the Trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC and companyvicted and sentenced them each to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and further sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 379 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.25000/ each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and directed the sentence to run companycurrently.
It stands established that PW9 Jagjit Singh and his mother PW11 Smt.
The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences and companyvicted and sentenced them as narrated above and the appeal preferred came to be dismissed and challenging the same the present appeals have been filed.
The premises numberT 56 and T 57 belonged to PW10 Inder Singh and his wife PW11 Smt.
Aggrieved by the same they have preferred the present appeals.
2The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009 Smt.
6The riots spearheaded at Delhi and during vandalism the occurrence had taken place and there is numberocular testimony.
T 56 and T 57 Takriwalan, till two months prior to the riots of 1984 and the accused persons were residing in the neighbourhood of the said shops and after the riots they were informed that their shops had been looted and some persons are occupying the same and on 20.11.1984 PW11 Smt.
Copies of the affidavits and statements are marked as documents in the present case.
The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record as rightly held by the High Court.
Prakash Kaur visited the shop and found goods looted and the accused persons in possession of the shops and despite her persistent companyplaints police did number register any case and when Jain Aggarwal Committee was companystituted they filed affidavits about the incident and on its direction a I.R. was registered against accused persons in January 1993 and charge sheet came to be filed.
Prakash Kaur and her son PW9 Jagjit Singh were also ransacked and in spite of their companyplaints to the police numberF.I.R. was registered and only when Jain Aggarwal Committee was companystituted they got an opportunity to file affidavits about the incident and direction came to be issued for registering the F.I.R. and in the process the delay of nine years has occurred.
Prakash Kaur that she visited the shop on 20.11.1984 and found accused persons in occupation of the shops and when questioned, they threatened her to go away otherwise she would be killed.
Prakash Kaur were running crockery business in the said shops.
Besides PW10 Inder Singh also filed suit for possession of the said premises against the accused and obtained a decree.
Ashi Devi, Smt.
PWs 9 to 11 have filed individual affidavits about the occurrence before the Jain Aggarwal Committee and have also deposed in the enquiry.
7It is the testimony of PW11 Smt.
Munni Devi and Smt.
Sheela Lali were accused number.4, 8 and 10 respectively and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2009 Uday Ram, Om Prakash, Kishan and Kishori were accused number.2, 5, 6 and 9 respectively in the Sessions case in SC No.54 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
Prakash Kaur and her son PW9 Jagjit Singh were running crockery shops in premises number.
In fact the accused have squattered on the property and the High Court passed order dated 8.12.2004 directing the S.H.O. to remove the accused from the premises in terms of the order passed by the Trial Court and after the decree of the Civil Court the possession was handed over to the companyplainants.
3The prosecution case in brief is that PW11 Smt.
PW12 Prem Kumar and PW14 Raj Pal Khurana were dealing with wholesale business of crockery and they have testified about supply of crockery to M s. Jagjit Crockery House running in the said premises and invoice companyies have also been marked.
Prakash Kaur and their son PW9 Jagjit Singh.
They have testified about the running of the crockery shops in the said premises.
NAGAPPAN, J. 1Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2004.
