Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Paramjit Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kapurthala, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 382 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years, besides to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, has been dismissed. The petitioners were prosecuted for committing theft of a gold chain from the neck of Davinder Kaur (PW1) on 28.9.2002 in the area of Mohalla Paramjit Ganj, Kapurthala. ASI Bimal Kant along with other Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 2 police officials was present at the Civil Hospital, Kapurthala on 28.9.2002 at about 3.20 p.m., when Davinder Kaur complainant informed him that she had come to the house of her parents at Mohalla Shargarh. At about 2.30 p.m. while she was going back to Jalandhar, her mother Daljit Kaur (PW4) had accompanied her to see her off. She had come to leave the complainant in the rickshaw. The complainant and her mother had reached near the house of Amarjit Singh. Then from the opposite side, two young boys came on a grey colour scooter. They stopped their scooter behind the complainant and her mother and all of a sudden, one of them snatched the gold chain from the neck of the complainant and ran towards the scooter. The complainant chased him and her mother raised an alarm. The boy who snatched the chain sat on the scooter but the complainant had caught hold of his shirt, as a result of which he fell down from the scooter. The driver of the scooter showed a knife to the complainant and threatened her to let his companion free, otherwise he would stab her. She, however, did not let go the boy and in the meantime, Amarjit Singh and Amrik Singh along with other people collected there and both the culprits were over-powered. On asking of the name of the boy who has snatched the chain of the complainant, he disclosed his name as Paramjit Singh @ Sonu (petitioner No.1). The boy who had shown a knife to the complainant, disclosed his name as Amandeep Singh @ Deepa (petitioner No.2). The number of the scooter was PB-08F-5442. On the basis of the statement given by the complainant Davinder Kaur, ASI Bimal Kant sent a ruqa (memo) (Ex.PA) to the Police Station through Constable Surat Singh on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PA/2) was registered. Both the petitioners were taken in custody and the case property was deposited at the Police Station. After completing the investigation, the petitioners were sent up for trial and the Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 3 learned trial Magistrate charge-sheeted them for the offence under Section 382 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Davinder Kaur complainant as PW1, ASI Bimal Kant PW2, ASI Satpal PW3, Daljit Kaur wife of Gajjan Singh PW4. Besides, documents were tendered in evidence and the evidence of the prosecution was closed. The statements of both the petitioners in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and the substances of the evidences appearing against them were put to them. The petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. In defence, Manjit Singh son of Gurbachan Singh was examined as DW1. The learned trial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record held the case under Section 382 IPC to be made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, they were convicted. By a separate order that was passed no case was made out for the grant of benefit of probation to the petitioners and therefore, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioners aggrieved against the same, filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3.6.2008, which is assailed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no independent witness was joined in the case, even though many were available at the time of the alleged occurrence. Besides, the witnesses who have been examined are primarily the complainants themselves who are deeply interested in the success of the case. They have deposed falsely against the petitioners to secure their conviction. Besides, it is submitted that there are material discrepancies in the deposition of Davinder Kaur Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 4 (PW1) and Daljit Kaur wife of Gajjan Singh (PW4), inasmuch as one of the prosecution witnesses deposed that she did not go to the Police Station, whereas the other deposed that she went to the Police Station along with her daughter. The said fact, it is submitted, is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the prosecution case is doubtful. As such, the petitioners are liable to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Even the link evidence, it is submitted, is missing. Besides, there are material discrepancies and contradictions between the prosecution witnesses. In any case, it is submitted that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is liable to be given to the petitioners as they are young boys. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners were apprehended and over-powered at the spot while they had snatched the gold chain that was worn by Davinder Kaur (PW1). It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses have no reason to falsely implicate the petitioners. Besides, in such cases of chain snatching in public streets independent witnesses from the public are generally reluctant to become witnesses for fear and their involvement and enmity with the accused. The facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted, are such that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of probation even. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it may be noticed that the petitioners were on their scooter when one of them got down from the scooter and snatched the gold chain that was worn by the complainant Davinder Kaur (PW1) on her neck. She apprehended the boy by getting hold of him from his shirt and made him fall on the ground. The other petitioner who was driving the scooter took out a knife and threatened the complainant to stab her. However, the complainant did not let go the Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 5 boy she had apprehended and in the meantime, others gathered and over- powered the petitioners. The name of the persons after the complainant had apprehended one of them were disclosed as Paramjit Singh @ Sonu (petitioner No.1) who had snatched the chain and the person who was driving scooter disclosed his name Amandeep Singh @ Deepa (petitioner No.2). Both of them were residents of Mohalla Saidan, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioners. Besides, there is direct evidence of Davinder Kaur (PW1) of apprehending petitioner No.1 after he had snatched the gold chain from her neck. The police after apprehending the culprits (petitioners) conducted their personal search and the gold chain was recovered from the right pocket of the trouser of the accused. Davinder Kaur complainant (PW1) identified the gold chain from the words “22 KDM” that were engraved with the seal on the locket. ASI Bimal Kant prepared recovery memo as well as memo of identification. It was observed that the testimony of Davinder Kaur (PW1) stands corroborated by her mother Daljit Kaur (PW4) who was also a direct witness to the occurrence. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought out so as to favour the petitioners. ASI Bimal Kant (PW2) supported the prosecution case and the investigations carried out by him. ASI Satpal (PW3) who was posted at Police Station Kapurthala at that time deposed that the matter was brought to his notice and he went to the spot and recorded the statement of Davinder Kaur (PW1). He took in police possession the gold chain and also the knife. A rough sketch of the knife was prepared. The registration certificate of the scooter was also taken in possession. Accordingly, it was held that the case against the petitioners stands established. The learned Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 6 Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala has confirmed the findings and conclusions reached at by the learned trial Magistrate. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are without any substance. The alleged discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners between the testimony of Davinder Kaur (PW1) and her mother Daljit Kaur (PW4) are not such which would, in any manner, affect the case of the prosecution. The fact that one of them deposed that she did not go to the Police Station, whereas the other stated that she went to the Police Station along with her daughter are admittedly events that have occurred after the incident. The position is that there is no discrepancy insofar as the actual occurrence is concerned which can, in any manner, be said to affect the prosecution case. It is not shown as to how the link evidence is, in any manner, missing or is otherwise defective. No substantial discrepancies or contradictions in deposition of the prosecution witnesses have been noticed, which would warrant the dislodging of the findings and conclusions concurrently reached at by the learned Court below. Insofar as the non- joining of independent witnesses is concerned, learned counsel for the State has rightly contended that in the incidents of chain snatching, people from the public are reluctant to join for fear of being involved or otherwise becoming inimical and hostile with the accused. Therefore, merely because independent witnesses have not been joined is by itself in the facts and circumstances no ground to discard the prosecution case. In cases of chain snatching from helpless victims, the benefit of probation is not to be extended. During proceedings in the present case in this Court, the Superintendent, District Jail, Kapurthala has filed his affidavit dated 13.2.2009 mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the petitioners. In the said affidavit against the column of any other Crl. Rev. No. 1438 of 2008 7 conviction/pending cases insofar as Paramjit Singh @ Sonu (petitioner No.1) is concerned, it is mentioned, ‘Nil’. However, insofar as Amandeep Singh @ Deepa (petitioner No.2) is concerned, it is mentioned that another case FIR No. 66 of 2007 for the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is pending against him which is registered at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala and he is on bail in the said case. Therefore, petitioner No.2 is involved in another case as well. As such, no case is made out for the grant of benefit of probation or for the reduction in the sentence that has been imposed. It is well-known that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court which is supervisory in nature cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated as a second appellate jurisdiction. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not to reappreciate the evidence and come to conclusions on the same, which are different from those recorded by the Courts below especially when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of this Court which would otherwise tantamount of miscarriage of justice. There is no such glaring feature in the appreciation of the evidence on record by the learned Courts below which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the findings and conclusions reached at by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioners cannot be said to be, in any manner, erroneous. In view of the above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) April 16, 2009 JUDGE amit