Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 809 (PNJ)

Kulbir Singh v. State (U. T. ) Chandigarh

2000-07-28

V.K.BALI

body2000
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against order dated 5.5.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which petitioner herein was held guilty under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months. This order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Magistrate has since been confirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 14.9.1987. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case had been that the petitioner on 11.9.1984 at Village Dadu Majra, kept in his dishonest possession stolen property, i.e., Atlas Cycle No. 7M-198583 belonging to Shanker Dass, Cycle No. HR-30706 (Hero), belonging to Ram Murti, Cycle No. 9M-026408, Atlas Cycle belonging to Ram Piara, Avon Cycle No. 007036 belonging to Harbhajan Singh, Avon Cycle No. 6886 belonging to Ram Dass, Cycle No. AK-31736 (Hero) belonging to Dharamvir, Cycle No. CH-339508 belonging to Jagdish, Cycle No. AE-28681 belonging to Nand Lal and two ceiling fans, make Unison, belonging to Utejpal Singh, knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. The stolen properties, referred to above, were recovered from the petitioner on his disclosure statement made by him before ASI Ishwar Singh of CIA Staff in the presence of Constable Kishore Chander, Rajbir Singh, Bant Ram and Ashok Kumar. It is in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the petitioner that articles, referred to above, were recovered from the place disclosed by him. 3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and pleaded false implication. He also stated that he was to get Rs. 2500/- from N.D. Pal in lieu of the work done and that he had gone to demand his money as the marriage of his sister was to take place on 8.9.1984 and that he was falsely implicated at the instance of Gurtej Pal Singh. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 5. No one appears in support or against this petition. Even no one appeared in this matter on 7.4.2000 when the matter was, however, adjourned. 6. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 5. No one appears in support or against this petition. Even no one appeared in this matter on 7.4.2000 when the matter was, however, adjourned. 6. It has been pleaded in the grounds of revision that the conviction in this case is based upon the solitary evidence of investigating officer, PW22 and that the prosecution had failed to produce official as well as independent recovery witnesses to prove the guilt of petitioner and further that reliance for conviction of petitioner had been placed upon testimony of PW22, even though the trial Magistrate had held that his statement cannot be read in evidence, he having not been produced for cross-examination. It has further been pleaded that there are major discrepancies in the statement made by the investigating officer and that no independent witness was joined from the locality while effecting recovered under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the witness who was joined from different locality was not produced to corroborate the prosecution version. 7. I find no merit in any of the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of revision. A firm finding of fact was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated about the theft of articles and recovery thereof. PW22 SI Ishwar Singh has fully supported the prosecution version. He had no enmity, ill-will or malice against the petitioner. The statement made by him is free from taint. Further, it may be recalled that it is a case of recovery of stolen articles on the basis of disclosure statement made by the petitioner. It is in consequence of said statement of petitioner that recovery was effected and further that the petitioner did not claim the property as belonging to him. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, prosecution had led sufficient evidence to prove its case against the petitioner beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Finding no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial Magistrate which, as referred to above, was affirmed by the appellate Court, I dismiss the revision, being totally devoid of merit. Revision dismissed.