Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1993 (RAJ)

Madan Lal S/o Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-12-11

RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
ORDER : RAVI CHIRANIA, J. 1 By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 02.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No1, Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal No.90/2007 whereby the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Cr. Original Case No.76/2001 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 14.11.2007 as below: Conviction for offences under Sections: Sentences 411 IPC 6 months’ R.I and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months’ S.I 2 The genesis of the case lies in a FIR No. 280/2000 lodged by complainant Amba Lal at Police Station Pratap Nagar. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2000, at around 8:00 PM, an unknown person stole his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-06-1M-6012 from the old bus stand near Shiv Bhojanalaya. The FIR was lodged on 27.06.2000. During the investigation, the co-accused, Damodar, while in police custody in another case, voluntarily gave information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on 05.02.2001, confessing to the theft and stating that he had sold the stolen motorcycle to the present petitioner, Madan Lal. Acting on this information, the police apprehended Madan Lal, who also gave a statement that he had purchased the said motorcycle from Damodar for Rs. 2,000 and had given it to one Satyanarayan for repainting and to change the engine number. Pursuant to these disclosures, the motorcycle was recovered from the premises of Satyanarayan on 07.02.2001. 3 After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Damodar under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”) and against the petitioner under Section 411 . The said chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner before the trial court, where charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences as stated above. The petitioner denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 9 documents in support of its case. The petitioner denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 9 documents in support of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the petitioner denied his participation in the incident, but no evidence was produced in defence. 5 On completion of trial, the learned Trial Judge vide judgment dated 14.11.2007 convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as stated above. 6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Court, however, the same was also rejected vide judgment dated 02.05.2008 and the judgment passed by the Trial Court was upheld. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the two courts below erred, both in law and on facts, in convicting the petitioner. He contended that the entire case of the prosecution rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, with no direct or ocular testimony conclusively linking the petitioner to the alleged offence. In the absence of such direct proof, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish an unbroken and coherent chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the petitioner’s guilt a burden which, he argued, the prosecution has failed to discharge. 8 The learned counsel further argued that the alleged recovery of the motorcycle, which forms a pivotal element of the prosecution’s case, is wholly unreliable and cannot be accepted as credible evidence. He pointed out that the key recovery witnesses, namely Jitendra (PW-3), Satyanarayan (PW-4), and Goga Ram (PW-5), turned hostile during the course of trial. These witnesses, he emphasized, did not support the prosecution’s version regarding any valid recovery from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, thereby undermining a crucial link in the prosecution’s story. 9 The counsel next contended that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies. He particularly drew attention to the discrepancies concerning the presence of the petitioner at the time of recovery and the identification by the accused persons. These contradictions, according to him, strike at the very root of the prosecution’s case, casting serious doubt on its credibility and rendering the evidence wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. He particularly drew attention to the discrepancies concerning the presence of the petitioner at the time of recovery and the identification by the accused persons. These contradictions, according to him, strike at the very root of the prosecution’s case, casting serious doubt on its credibility and rendering the evidence wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. 10 The learned counsel additionally challenged the very basis of the recovered property, contending that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the motorcycle in question was stolen by petitioner. He submitted that the chain of evidence linking the alleged theft to the recovered vehicle is broken, inconsistent, and unreliable, thereby vitiating the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 411 of the IPC . 11 Lastly, the learned counsel pleaded that the petitioner has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration during the pendency of the trial and subsequent appellate proceedings. He urged that this prolonged custody be taken into sympathetic consideration by this Hon’ble Court while adjudicating the present revision petition. 12 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and argued that the convictions are based on the voluntary disclosures made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which led to the recovery of the stolen vehicle, thus forming a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. 13 Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material available on the record. 14 Both the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held the recovery is well proved and recorded a finding of guilt. This Court has examined the record to satisfy itself that the concurrent findings of the courts below do not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. The finding of fact is based on the voluntary disclosure statements of the co-accused Damodar and the petitioner himself under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which directly led to the recovery of the stolen motorcycle. The registration number and chassis number of the recovered motorcycle matched those of the stolen vehicle. The identity of the motorcycle was not disputed at any stage by the defence. The testimony of the Investigating Officers (PW-7 Rupkishore and PW-2 Iqbal Hussain) corroborates the sequence of events leading to the recovery based on the petitioner's information. The registration number and chassis number of the recovered motorcycle matched those of the stolen vehicle. The identity of the motorcycle was not disputed at any stage by the defence. The testimony of the Investigating Officers (PW-7 Rupkishore and PW-2 Iqbal Hussain) corroborates the sequence of events leading to the recovery based on the petitioner's information. 15 While the recovery witnesses may have turned hostile on certain aspects, the core of the prosecution’s case, namely the discovery of a fact/article in consequence of information received from the accused remains intact and is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The hostility of a witness does not wipe out his testimony in its entirety. 16 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra , 2012 SCC OnLine SC 729 , after relying on Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan , (2004) 10 SCC 657 , reiterated that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, the recovery does not stand vitiated if proved by the Investigating Officer. The Court summarised the legal requirements of Section 27 as follows: “20. This Court, in Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, held that even if panch witness turned hostile, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. After considering the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 this Court enumerated the following principles to be adhered to. "16. The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows: (a) the fact discovered must be relevant; (b) a fact must actually be discovered; (c) such discovery must be in consequence of information supplied by the accused; (d) the person giving information must be an accused; (e) he must be in police custody; and (f) the fact discovered must be deposed to by the witness proving the recovery.”” 17 In the present case, these requirements stand fully satisfied. The disclosure statements of the co-accused and the petitioner, the consequent recovery, and the corroboration by the Investigating Officers complete the chain of circumstances pointing to the petitioner’s conscious possession of stolen property. 18 While revisional jurisdiction over sentence is exercised sparingly, it may be invoked to prevent undue harshness in suitable circumstances. The offence is undoubtedly serious as it encourages the cycle of crime by providing a market for stolen goods. 18 While revisional jurisdiction over sentence is exercised sparingly, it may be invoked to prevent undue harshness in suitable circumstances. The offence is undoubtedly serious as it encourages the cycle of crime by providing a market for stolen goods. However, considering the circumstances specifically, the young age of the petitioner, his family circumstances with five de- pendent children, the fact that he was not the principal thief but the receiver of stolen property, and the period he has already spent in custody this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence. 19 The petitioner has suffered the ignominy of a long-drawn legal process and incarceration. Keeping him in prison further would not serve any greater societal purpose in the facts of this case. 20 The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. , (1998) 9 SCC 678 , was pleased to observe as under: Alister Anthony Pareira “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das “… considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...” 21 In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed. 22 Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 411 of the IPC , the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. 22 Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 411 of the IPC , the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. 23 Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.