Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : March 04, 2009 Lallu ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Ankul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, AAG Haryana Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This revision by petitioner Lallu son of Rajuddin Meo is directed against judgment dated 7.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby judgment of conviction dated 18.1.1999 and order of sentence dated 19.1.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, holding him guilty under section 392 of the IPC and passing sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for three months, was confirmed. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this revision petition, may be recapitulated thus:- Munshi Ram complainant who was originally a resident of Nuh had shifted to Taoru and there he was living with his son Dharam Kishore, Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 1999 (O&M) -2- an Advocate. It was about 2.30 AM on the night intervening Ist and 2nd of September, 1991, petitioner and two other persons entered into his house. At that time complainant heard a noise of opening of almirah. Thereupon he woke up and saw that there were two young persons inside the room. They were of short stature. The third person (petitioner) was standing there in the gallery. On seeing all this the complainant cried 'chor-chor' which awakened Dharam Kishore and his wife. Thereupon the short statured persons had succeeded in running away whereas the third one who was the petitioner was over-powered. However, after causing head injury with an axe on the person of Dharam Kishore, he also succeeded in running away. After hearing the noise, Kailash and Raghbir PWs had also reached at the spot and had seen the culprits. While scuffling two gold bangles and one ring which were taken away by the person having kulhari were also snatched from him. After this occurrence, Dharam Kishore injured was taken to PHC Taoru from where he was referred to General Hospital, Gurgaon. In the meantime, ruqa was also sent to Police Station Taoru from PHC, Taoru. Thereupon, ASI Jai Parkash SI/SHO reached in the hospital and there statement of Munshi Ram complainant was recorded in the above narration of the facts on the basis of which case was registered for offence punishable under sections 392, 394 read with section 34 IPC. After that, Jai Parkash who is an Investigating Officer of this case reached the place of occurrence. From there he collected the sample of blood lying on the ground. He had also taken into possession a piece of vest (banian) from the spot. The golden ring and bangles which were snatched from the petitioner at the spot during scuffle were also taken into possession. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. The accused in this Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 1999 (O&M) -3- case was arrested on 2.9.1991. On interrogation, he also made a disclosure statement and in consequence thereof, kulhari was recovered at his instance. On completion of the investigation of the case, the petitioner was challaned in this case by Gulshan Rai, the then SI/SHO. Learned trial court framed the charge under sections 392,394 IPC vide its order dated 7.10.1992. Ultimately, the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, he has come up in this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings of the courts below mainly on two counts. At the first place, his submission was that the occurrence of this case is shown to have taken place on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd September, 1991 whereas the petitioner was arrested in the day time of 2.9.1991 as stated by the Investigating Officer of this case. At the second place, his point of argument was that the petitioner was identified for the first time only in the court which is not admissible. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about one year and five months of sentence, therefore, the sentence already awarded to the petitioner be reduced to that period. On the other hand, learned State counsel has rebutted all the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and find no substance in any of the aforesaid points of arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner, Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 1999 (O&M) -4- inasmuch as at the first place, if we go through the entire evidence and the prosecution story, it is made out that, in fact, the occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 1st and 2nd September, 1991 and the petitioner, admittedly, was arrested in the day time of 2.9.1991. So, the first argument as stated above on behalf of the petitioner, appears to have been developed on mis-conception of facts. Secondly, it is there in the concurrent findings of the courts below that there was a scuffle between the petitioner and the witnesses for a considerable time at the time of occurrence and ultimately he (petitioner) was also given offer regarding his joining test identification parade but he refused to do so. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the learned courts below have rightly drawn adverse inference against him. Not only that, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, a weapon of offence with which he had caused injury on the person of Dharam Kishore at the time of occurrence was also recovered. All this goes a long way to corroborate the story of the prosecution. Now adverting to the last point of argument regarding reduction in the period of sentence. No doubt, the petitioner has already undergone about one year and five months of sentence during the trial and pendency of appeal but keeping in view the seriousness and the gravity of the offence and also the manner in which he had robbed of the victims and also caused injuries, he does not deserve any concession in the matter of sentence. It is also to add here that learned State counsel, during the course of arguments also placed on the file an affidavit of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Hissar wherein the petitioner is also shown to have already been convicted in another case bearing FIR No. 4/95 under section 411 IPC Police Station Nuh in which he was released on 6.6.2000 after serving his Criminal Revision No. 1074 of 1999 (O&M) -5- sentence. It is also pertinent to mention here that he is still facing trial in another case bearing FIR No. 237/98 under sections 399, 462 IPC and Arms Act, Police Station Taoru. Thus, taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to make reduction in the substantive sentence awarded by the courts below. In the result, it is held that the findings arrived at by the courts below are not perverse or unreasonable in any manner. Thus, this revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence in jail. Office is directed to send the records immediately. ( Pritam Pal ) March 04, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'