Crl. Revision Nos. 2011 & 2013 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision: 05.09.2011 1. Crl. Revision No. 2011 of 2011 (O&M) Krishan @ Bholu ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent 2. Crl. Revision No. 2013 of 2011 (O&M) Satyawan @ Tana ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Revision Nos. 2011 and 2013 of 2011, as both have arisen out of the same judgment. For reference, facts are taken from Criminal Revision No. 2011 of 2011. Assailed in these petitions is the judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeals preferred by accused-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') against the judgment of conviction dated 13.07.2010 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gohana. Crl. Revision Nos. 2011 & 2013 of 2011 2 Factual matrix of the case is that on 22.07.2000 at about 9.00 P.M., the complainant-Arjun Dass along with his brother Bhagwan Dass was going to his house with a bag containing Rs.40,000/- approximately i.e. sale of the day. When they reached near the main market and were near the tea stall, then three boys came from behind and pushed the complainant aside. One of them snatched the bag of cash and fled from the spot. He gave the description of the boys who had committed the robbery. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was recorded on 22.07.2000. Investigation was conducted; accused were arrested and challan was presented against them. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. However, on failure of the prosecution to conclude the entire evidence, the evidence of prosecution was closed by order. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. Having failed to lead any evidence against Surender @ Niku, he has been acquitted, whereas the petitioners were convicted. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the impugned judgments, there are concurrent findings of the Courts below that on 22.07.2000 when the complainant along with Bhagwan Dass, was going to his house with a bag containing Rs.40,000/-, the petitioners came from behind and one of the petitioners pushed him aside and the other snatched the bag and fled away. Both the eye witnesses have duly supported Crl. Revision Nos. 2011 & 2013 of 2011 3 the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses. It was night time. The accused also attacked the complainant and his brother while finding them alone, therefore, availability of the independent witness was not possible. Recovery of money from the accused also supports the prosecution version. The prosecution has also established the recovery of stolen money from the accused. The accused Krishan @ Bholu, on his arrest, disclosed that out of his share of the robbed money i.e. Rs.5000/-, he had spent Rs.3000/- and had kept concealed the remaining sum of Rs.2000/- in an almirah in his house, which he could get recovered. Similarly, Satyawan @ Tana, when arrested, also made a disclosure statement that out of his share of Rs.15,000/-, he had spent Rs.5000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was concealed by him in an almirah of his house. Consequently, they got recovered the aforesaid money, which was taken into possession by the police vide different recovery memos. Since the complainant and the witness Bhagwan Dass had the opportunity and occasion to see the accused, who had pushed them and snatched the bag, could well identify them, therefore, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. Non-examination of the independent witnesses, in the given circumstances of the case, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, it would have to be held that the prosecution has established its case against the accused under Section 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The accused had failed to lead any plausible evidence in order to prove their innocence. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very Crl. Revision Nos. 2011 & 2013 of 2011 4 limited in nature. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re- appreciation of evidence. Further, on the issue, it was held as under:- “The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Having scrutinized the impugned judgments, it transpires that the Courts below have returned a findings of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. Resultantly, finding no merit in both the petitions, the same are hereby dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) September 5, 2011 JUDGE ajp