Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 415 (PNJ)

Lakhi v. State of Haryana

2000-04-18

V.S.AGGARWAL

body2000
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by Lakhi (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Karnal dated 13.5.1988 holding the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 11.7.1988 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The relevant facts are that Sudesh Rani wife of Sudarshan Kumar had boarded in Haryana Roadways Bus No. HYC-8752 from Karnal on 19.8.1984. She was to come from Kaithal to Tohana. The bus left Karnal at 12.15 noon. She was carrying a suit case. A necklace of gold, two ear-rings (kantas) of gold, one ring and four bangles of gold (Karas) besides a chain of silver and two keys of the lockers, she had placed in her purse which was kept in the suit case. The suit case was kept near the bonnet and seat of the driver. She could only find a place in the third row of the bus. One person was travelling in the bus and was sitting in the front seat. He adjusted the suit case and kept it near him. He got down at Kaithal. Sudesh Rani had change the bus at Kaithal and thereafter took another bus to go to Tohana. In the remaining part of the journey, she kept the suit case under her feet. When she reached Tohana and opened the suit case, she found that ornaments kept in the purse had been stolen. she suspected that the person who was sitting on the front seat had committed the said offence. 3. A written application Ex.PW-4/A was made to the Station House Officer of the Police Station by her husband. A case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner had been arrested in some other case by the C.I.A. Staff, Panipat, He was remanded to police custody. On 18.11.1984 he made a disclosure statement but it did not lead to any recovery. A case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner had been arrested in some other case by the C.I.A. Staff, Panipat, He was remanded to police custody. On 18.11.1984 he made a disclosure statement but it did not lead to any recovery. On 20.11.1984 on being interrogated, the petitioner in presence of Sunehra and Manphool Head Constable made a disclosure statement that he can got recovered the gold ornaments. He led the said persons to his house and from the specified place, he got recovered the gold ornaments. These were taken into possession vide a recovery memo Ex.PW-4/A. Sudesh Rani was called and in presence of Sajjan Singh Sarpanch she identified the ornaments. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan was drawn and after completion of other formalities, report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. 5. Charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he has falsely been implicated. 6. After recording the prosecution evidence, followed by the statement of the petitioner, the learned trial Court held that it has been established that petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. This led to the passing of the judgments and the order of sentence. As mentioned above, the appeal also failed. 7. It transpired in the statement of Sudesh Rani PW-2 that she was travelling in the said bus when the theft took place. She discovered the same when she reached Tohana. On that account there is no ground to disbelieve her statement because otherwise there was no occasion for her to place her ornaments worth about 11 totals as case property. 8. So far as arrest of the petitioner and disclosure statement is concerned, it transpired in evidence of Jagat Singh PW-7 that the petitioner was interrogated on 21.11.1984. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-3/A. The petitioner got recovered the ornaments from the Baroli which was buried in the floor of the room. There is no ground to discredit the said witness supported by the other two witnesses namely Sunehra and Manphool Singh. When substratum and the statements are unshaken, the learned Courts below rightly ignored the minor discrepancies which necessarily occur even in the statements of most truthful witnesses. There is no ground to discredit the said witness supported by the other two witnesses namely Sunehra and Manphool Singh. When substratum and the statements are unshaken, the learned Courts below rightly ignored the minor discrepancies which necessarily occur even in the statements of most truthful witnesses. Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code reads :- "411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property. - Whoever dishonesty receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which was extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Necessary ingredients of the relevant provisions reproduced above are that person should dishonestly receive or retain any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe to be stolen property, would be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly illustrates that a presumption can be drawn that a person who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either a thief or has received the goods knowing them stolen, unless he can account for his possession. 10. The petitioner herein does not claim the goods. The same had been recovered on his disclosure statement from his house. Goods had been stolen. The necessary presumption, therefore, was rightly drawn and there is no ground to interfere in the finding that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. 11. As regards the sentence, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence for nearly two weeks. The incident took place almost 16 years ago. In these circumstances, the interest of justice shall be fully met if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. But the order of sentence as referred to above is modified. The sentence is reduced to the one already undergone with no interference on the quantum of fine. Revision dismissed.