SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1998. D/d. 21.7.1998.

Harjit Singh and another - Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana - Respondent

For the Petitioners :- R.S. Sodhi and Kuldip Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Prem Malhotra Advocate.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 457, 392, 397, 307, 332 and 34 - Arms Act, 1959, Section 27 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 - Theft of medicines - Statements of two eye witnesses that on seeing one witness approaching towards accused they started their car and tried to knock down him and fired at them - Conviction under all the three Acts held to the proper.

[Paras 2 and 3]

JUDGMENT

G.T. Nanavati, J. - The appellants are challenging their conviction under Sections 457, 392, 397, 307 and 332 all read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5 of the TADA and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of ASI - Karam Singh - PW-3 and Head Constable - Tarvinder Singh - PW-5, who were the eye-witnesses and that of P.C. Goel, who was working as an assistant in the Alembic Medical Store, situated near Sirhand Club, Ambala Cantt. The evidence of P.C. Goel - PW-4 clearly establishes that a theft of medicines worth Rs. 1,12,000 took place in the Alembic Medical Store. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses clearly establishes that on seeing PW-3 - Karam Singh approaching towards, them, the accused started their car and tried to knocked down PW-3 - Karam Singh, who was approaching them on scooter. The evidence also establishes that the person sitting in the car started firing at them and therefore ASI - Karam Singh was required to fire three shots from his revolver.

3. The Designated Court has considered their evidence and given good reasons to accept it. We seen no reason to differ from the view taken by the Designated Court. Once their evidence is believed, all the offences alleged against them stand established.

4. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Appeal dismissed.