IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2005 Date of decision: November 29, 2010 Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent A.N. Jindal, J The accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') was prosecuted for snatching a chain from the neck of the lady. Consequently, on trial, vide judgment dated 22/25.2.2005, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 356/511 IPC. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide judgment dated 1.4.2005. The allegations in nutshell are that on 12.8.2000, Rita Khullar resident of House No.1678, Sector 15, Panchkula (PW1) had gone from Chandigarh to Sector 15, Panchkula. On her way back to Chandigarh, when she, after alighting from the bus, was on the way to her home, the petitioner came from behind on a bicycle and started snatching the golden chain. The complainant raised hue and cry which attracted Sachin son of Sham Sunder resident of House No.347, Industrial Area, Phase II who intervened and attempted to catch hold of the accused, however, the accused fled away. The chain which the complainant was wearing was broken. On the aforesaid complaint Ex.PW3/B, a case was registered and investigated. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 356 read with Section 511 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2005 -2- *** In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Rita Khullar (PW1), Amit Narula (PW2), ASI Tirlok Singh (PW3), C. Parkaksh Chand (PW4) and Sachin (PW5). In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution case is based on the testimony of Rita Khullar (PW1), Amit Narula (PW2), ASI Tirlok Singh (PW3) and Sachin (PW5). All the witnesses are quite consistent in their statements with regard to time, place and the manner in which the occurrence took place. They have withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing could be elicited from the lengthy cross examination which could shatter the prosecution version. Now re-appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality much less irregularity or perversity warranting interference by this court. Both the courts have returned concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim remuneration from the Competent Authority as per rules. November 29, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge