Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 398 (PNJ)

Ram Kishan Alias Lilli v. State Of Haryana

2009-02-26

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 2-3-2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions judge, Jhajjar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, bahadurgarh, convicting accused, Ram kishan, (now revision-petitioner) for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of the indian Penal Code, and awarding him sentence to undergo R. I. for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 , and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R. I. for three months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 4-8-1991 Jai Bhagwan, complainant, presented an application, Ex: PA, containing the allegations that he was having a shop of spareparts on Delhi-Rohtak Road, Bahadurgarh and about four months earlier to 4-8-1991, accused Jagdish and Ram Kishan made a mis-representation to Jai Bhagwan and His brother Om Niwas, by saying that there was a hidden treasure inside their house. On the basis of the mis-representation of the accused, the complainant and his brother, dug the room, and saw one side of a pitcher, and one silver coin. The accused further mis-represented that the family deity (Devta) was sitting, in the form of a snake, on the hidden treasure. The accused further dishonestly induced the complainant, and his brother by mis-representing that for the satisfaction of deity (Devta), they had to deliver six and a half tolas of gold, 300 grams silver and a sum of Rs.5,000.00 . On the inducement of the accused, the aforesaid gold, silver and cash amount of Rs.5,000.00 were delivered to them. They further told the complainant and his brother that they would return after 12 days. However, the accused did not return after the stipulated period. The complainant searched the accused personally, at different places, but to no avail, and, ultimately, on the application, referred to above, of the complainant, formal FIR, ex. PA/1 was registered under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were apprehended. They were interrogated. They made disclosure statements Ex. PB and Ex. PC, regarding the concealment of the aforesaid gold, silver and cash. In pursuance of the disclosure statements, they got recovered the same, which were taken into possession, vide memos Ex. PE and Ex. PD. Rough site plans of the place of the recovery ex. PW6/b and Ex. PW6/c were prepared. They made disclosure statements Ex. PB and Ex. PC, regarding the concealment of the aforesaid gold, silver and cash. In pursuance of the disclosure statements, they got recovered the same, which were taken into possession, vide memos Ex. PE and Ex. PD. Rough site plans of the place of the recovery ex. PW6/b and Ex. PW6/c were prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 420 of the Indian penal Code was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Jai Bhagwan son of Rampat (complainant), PW 1. Om Niwas, PW 2, Ram Rati pw 3, Constable Partap Singh, PW 4, SI chatarbhuj PW 5 and SI Inder Singh PW 6. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosection evidence. 5. Accused Jagdish absented from the court. His presence could not be procured. Thereafter, he was declared Proclaimed Offender, vide order dated 2-3-1996 by the trial court. 6. The statement of accused, Ram kishan, under Sec.313, Cr. P. C. was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. 7. After hearing the Additional Public prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by Ram Kishan, appellant, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 2-3-2002, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, jhajjar. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by Ram Kishan, revision petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision petitioner did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the appellate Court. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by Ram Kishan, revision petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision petitioner did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the appellate Court. Even otherwise, she could not challenge the same successfully, as the Courts below by relying upon the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Jai Bhagwan, complainant, PW 1, who deposed in terms of the prosecution case, duly corroborated by Om Niwas, PW 2 and Ram Rati, PW 3, in whose presence the mis-representation was made by the accused and they dishonestly induced the complainant and his brother to part with the aforesaid gold silver and cash amount, constable Partap Singh, PW 4 and chattarbhuj ASI, PW 5, who interrogated the accused, resulting into making of disclosure statements, by them, regarding the concealment of the aforesaid articles, and, ultimately, getting the same recovered from the pre-disclosed place, rightly came to conclusion that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sec.420 of the Indian penal Code. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, is not to re-appreciate and re-appraise the evidence produced by the prosecution, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings recorded by the Courts below, are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. In the instant case, a careful perusal of the judgment, in context with the evidence produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the same suffers from any illegality, perversity or that the findings recorded are erroneous, on account of the mis-reading of evidence. The findings recorded by the courts below, regarding the guilt of the accused, therefore, do not warrant any interference and, on the other hand, deserve to be upheld. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 4-8-1991, i. e. for the last more than 17 years, the sentence awarded to him, he reduced to the minimum. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that since the revision-petitioner has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 4-8-1991, i. e. for the last more than 17 years, the sentence awarded to him, he reduced to the minimum. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In my opinion, the sentence awarded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the appellate Court, is not incommensurate with the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said to be excessive or harsh. The mere fact that the revision-petitioner has been facing criminal proceedings since 4-8-1991, in itself, is not sufficient to show him undue sympathy, in the matter of sentence. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice systern to undermine the public confidence, in the efficacy of law, and the society could no longer endure under such serious threats, It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to, award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of offence, and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The manner, in which, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant, and his brother and made them to deliver the gold and silver ornaments as also the cash amount of Rs.5,000.00 was such which does not call for reduction in the sentence awarded to him, by the Courts below. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, for the reduction of sentence, is made out. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. No other point, was urged, by the counsel for the parties. 14. For the reasons recorded above, criminal revision petition No.609 of 2002, is dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, jhajjar, is directed to comply with the judgment promptly in accordance with the provisions of law on receipt of a certified copy thereof. Petition dismissed.