Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 25, 2013 Joginder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
By this common order, I am disposing of two criminal revision petitions i.e. instant petition bearing Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 titled Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab and connected petition bearing Crl. Revn. No. 4000 of 2012 titled Bhupinder Singh vs. State of Punjab because both these revision petitions have arisen out of common judgments and orders of the courts below.
Ravinder Kaur - complainant lodged FIR alleging that on 05.11.1996, at about 05:30 P.M., three persons came to her house and told Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) 2 that they had to meet her husband, as per appointment given by him. Complainant's husband was not at home. The aforesaid persons entered the house on the pretext of making telephone call to the complainant's husband, who was working in Floating Restaurant at Sirhind. The assailants took away jewellary of the complainant on pistol point. The complainant made supplementary statement that Bhupinder Singh - accused was standing outside while the three persons entered the house. During investigation, both the petitioners Joginder Singh and Bhupinder Singh along with their co-accused Harjit Singh @ Happy (since deceased) and Jagtar Singh @ Jagga were arrested. At their instance, all stolen ornaments were recovered. Police presented challan for prosecution of all the four accused under Sections 386 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC).
Charge was framed under Sections 452, 392 and 120-B IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 12.11.2009, held all the three accused (excluding the deceased accused) guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted them accordingly and vide order of sentence dated 12.11.2009, sentenced each of the three convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 392 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offence under Sections 452 and 120-B IPC. Sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) 3 fine was also imposed. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by all the three convicts has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 22.11.2012. Feeling aggrieved, only two convicts Joginder Singh and Bhupinder Singh have filed these revision petitions.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case files. Counsel for the petitioners contends that Bhupinder Singh was already known to the complainant, but he was not named in the FIR. It was also argued that all the stolen ornaments were allegedly recovered from the accused persons and they had not sold even a single ornament out of it and it sounds improbable. Reference was also made to photograph Annexure P-1 (Ex.D-X), which is photograph of complainant, her husband and Bhupinder Singh besides a child.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Complainant was not confronted with photograph Annexure P-1. Moreover, Bhupinder Singh appearing in the said photograph was allegedly standing outside the house at the time of occurrence. Consequently, if Bhupinder Singh was not named in the FIR, it is not fatal to the prosecution case. Bhupinder Singh was, however, named in the supplementary statement by the complainant.
The complainant has fully supported the prosecution case. Her Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) 4 testimony could not be impeached in cross-examination. Her statement is corroborated by recovery of stolen ornaments at the instance of accused persons. The said recovery clinches the prosecution case against the accused persons.
Both the courts below have analysed the evidence in detail and have come to concurrent finding that the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said finding is not shown to be suffering from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners is upheld. As regards quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place more than 16 years ago. The petitioners have undergone the agony of trial including the appeal and revision during this long period.
Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 392 IPC needs to be reduced to some extent, on this ground. However, at the same time, it has to be kept in view that such incidents are rising by the day and for this reason, deterrent punishment is required to be imposed in such cases. Accordingly, striking a balance, sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners under Section 392 IPC is reduced to two years, while maintaining the sentence of fine for the said offence and also maintaining Crl. Revn. No. 3896 of 2012 (O&M) 5 the sentence of imprisonment and fine for remaining two offences.
With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
January 25, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE