Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 528 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh S/o Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-03-19

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J 1. This revision is directed against the judgement, dated 02.09.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence for the offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitting the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 05.01.2001, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class, Fazilka, convicting the accused and awarding them sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence, punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Pawan Kumar, complainant, had been running a shop of karyana merchant, in Krishna Mandir Street, Jalalabad. On 12.12.1999 he, his mother Sumitra Devi and Asha Rani, wife of Harbhagwan, were present at the shop. He was selling the goods to Asha Rani. Both the accused came to the shop. Surjit Singh, accused, removed gold ear-rings from the ears of Sumitra Devi, by pulling the same, whereas, Maninder Singh, accused, removed the earrings from the ears of Asha Rani, in the same manner. Thereafter, both the accused ran away from the spot. They were duly chased by the complainant, but, on account of darkness, they managed to escape. The ear-rings were got manufactured from Babbu son of Kishore Chand, gold smith, PW2. The complainant and the ladies, aforesaid, continued asking the kith and kin of the accused, to give back the ear-rings aforesaid, but they failed to do so. Thereafter, the complainant got the first information report recorded. During the course of investigation, both the accused were arrested on 18.12.1998. They were interrogated on 19.12.1998, in the presence of the complainant, and Babbu, goldsmith. Surjit Singh, accused, made a disclosure statement P2 that he had concealed the ear-rings, after putting the same, in an envelope, in the western corner of the plot, in front of the house of Maninder Singh, of which he only knew, and could get the same recovered, by pointing out. Surjit Singh, accused, made a disclosure statement P2 that he had concealed the ear-rings, after putting the same, in an envelope, in the western corner of the plot, in front of the house of Maninder Singh, of which he only knew, and could get the same recovered, by pointing out. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a pair of ear-rings, which were identified by Babbu, gold smith, as the same, as were got manufactured from him by Sumitra Devi. The ear-rings were converted into a parcel, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide memo P5. On interrogation, Maninder Singh, accused, made a disclosure statement P3, that he had concealed a pair of ear-rings, after putting the same, in an envelope, in the western corner of the inhabited house of Setia, in front of his own house, of which he only knew and could get the same recovered, by pointing out. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the ear-rings, from the said place, which were identified by Babbu, gold-smith, as the same were got manufactured from him, by Harbhagwan. The ear-rings were converted into a parcel, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide memo P4. The rough site plan P10 of the place of recovery, was prepared. 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 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them, which was read-over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1), Babbu, gold smith (PW2), Puran Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW3), Sumitra Devi (PW4), and Asha Rani (PW5). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them, that the prosecution witnesses, had relations with influential persons and, as such, a false case was got registered against them. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence, in their defence. 6. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. It was stated by them, that the prosecution witnesses, had relations with influential persons and, as such, a false case was got registered against them. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence, in their defence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellants (now revision-petitioners), which was partly accepted, as stated above. 8. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the revision-petitioners. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have carefully gone through the evidence and record of the case. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the Courts below. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same, as the Appellate Court, on careful scrutiny of the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of Pawan Kumar, complainant, PW1, who witnessed the commission of theft of ear-rings, of Sumitra Devi and Asha Rani, by the accused, Sumitra Devi, PW4, and Asha Rani, PW5, the victims, ear-rings from whose ears were removed by the accused, Babbu, gold smith, PW2, from whom, these gold ear-rings were got manufactured and who identified the same and Puran Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW3, who conducted the investigation, came to the right conclusion, that the accused were guilty of the commission of offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is settled principle of law, that the Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, is not to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence produced by the prosecution, unless and until, it comes to the conclusion, that the findings, recorded by the Courts below, are either illegal or perverse or erroneous, on account of misreading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgement of the Appellate Court, modifying the judgement of the trial Court, in context of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the same suffers from any illegality or perversity or that the findings of conviction recorded, are, in any way, erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The careful perusal of the judgement of the Appellate Court, modifying the judgement of the trial Court, in context of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not indicate that the same suffers from any illegality or perversity or that the findings of conviction recorded, are, in any way, erroneous on account of misreading of evidence. The findings of the Appellate Court, modifying the findings of the trial Court, convicting the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, do not call for any interference, and the same deserve to be affirmed. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, however, submitted that the revision-petitioners have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 18.12.1999, the date of registration of the aforesaid case. He further submitted that after the registration of the aforesaid case, the revision-petitioners, have not committed any offence. He further submitted that the value of the ear-rings, stolen by the revision-petitioners, also could not be said to be heavy. He further submitted that the revision-petitioners have no past criminal record. It was further submitted by him that, under these circumstances, the revision-petitioners may be granted the concession of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in this regard, appears to be correct. The revision-petitioners have been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 1999 i.e. for the last more than 9 years. They are not previous convicts. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the antecedents of the revision-petitioners, the nature of offence, committed by them, and the factum that they are not previous convicts, I consider it a fit case, in which, the substantive sentence awarded to them, should be set-aside, and instead they be released on probation of good conduct. To this extent, the submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being correct, is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Revision No. 2042 of 2002, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction dated 02.09.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, modifying the judgement of conviction, of the trial Court, is upheld. The order of sentence is set-aside. Instead, the revision-petitioners, for the reasons recorded above, are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, for a period of 2 years each, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of Rs. 5000/-each. The order of sentence is set-aside. Instead, the revision-petitioners, for the reasons recorded above, are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct, for a period of 2 years each, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of Rs. 5000/-each. During this period they shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. The revision-petitioners shall also furnish an undertaking, that they shall not commit any offence of the like nature, during the period of probation. The revision-petitioners are directed to pay costs of the proceedings, to the tune of Rs. 5000/-each. The probation bonds and the undertaking shall be submitted by the revision-petitioners, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate within one and a half months from today. The costs shall also be deposited by the revision-petitioners, within the aforesaid period. In case, the revision-petitioners fail to furnish the probation bonds, as also the undertaking, and deposit the costs, aforesaid, within the stipulated period, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall be at liberty to proceed, in accordance with law, to comply with the judgment.