Criminal Revision No.492 of 2009 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.492 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Amarjit Kaur alias Amro ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. R.S.Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, D.A.G. Punjab. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated February 4th, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 21st, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of ` 200/- with default stipulation. 2. Facts : On October 3rd, 1999, Satish Kumar (PW-1) and his wife Sushma Rani (PW-2) were present in a Gurudwara in village Phaphre Bhai Ke to pay obeisance. Sheelo alias Rupo, daughter in law/co-accused of the petitioner, snatched a gold chain of Sushma Rani, which she was wearning. She was apprehended but managed her escape. Satish Kumar (PW-1) reported the matter to the Police. On his statement (Exhibit PA), First Information Report (Exhibit PA/2) was registered. Sheelo was arrested. She was interrogated. She made disclosure statement (Exhibit PW4/D) to the effect that the chain, which she had stolen in the Gurdwara, was handed over by her to her mother in law – Amarjit Kaur, present Criminal Revision No.492 of 2009 2 .. petitioner. 3. Petitioner was arrested on May 17th, 2000. She was interrogated. She made disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-5/A) and pursuant thereof, she led the Police Party to the disclosed place, that is, plot behind the house of one Palo in her village Bhikhi and got recovered the chain. The chain was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PW5/B). The chain was identified by Satish Kumar (PW-1). Harbans Singh (PW-3) also proved that chain was prepared by him. He also proved receipt (Exhibit PB). 4. After completion of investigation and other formalities, the petitioner was arraigned for trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses. These are : Satish Kumar (PW-1), Sushma Rani (PW-2), Harbans Singh (PW-3), Assistant Sub Inspector Darshan Singh (PW-4), Assistant Sub Inspector Buta Singh (PW-5), Constable Parwinder Singh (PW-6), Lady Constable Sukhraj Kaur (PW-7). 6. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. She denied her complicity and pleaded innocence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgments of the Courts below on the short ground that Ravinder Kumar, independent witness, who was joined by the Prosecution at the time of making the disclosure statement (Exhibit PW-5/A) and the recovery of chain by the petitioner, was not examined. So, the benefit of the same should be given to the petitioner. 8. Against this, learned State counsel has stated that Buta Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-5) and Parminder Singh Head Constable (PW-6) have stated in their statements that the petitioner made the disclosure statement and got recovered the chain from the disclosed place and the evidence is sufficient to prove the offence against the petitioner. It was also contended by learned State counsel that at the time of registration of the present case, the Criminal Revision No.492 of 2009 3 .. petitioner was an accused in eleven other cases of theft, registered against her in different Police Stations. 9. A perusal of the evidence consisting of statements of Buta Singh (PW-5) and Parwinder Singh (PW-6) shows that per the disclosure statement (Exhibit PW4/D) of the petitioner, she got recovered the chain. The chain was duly identified by Satish Kumar (PW-1), Sushma Rani (PW-2) and Harbans Singh (PW-3). Harbans Singh (PW-3) also proved the receipt (Exhibit PB). No discrepancy could be pointed out in their testimony to disbelieve them. They have given a vivid narration of the evidence, that is, arrest of the petitioner, making of disclosure statement and recovery of the chain at the instance of the petitioner. 10. The prosecution had joined Rajinder Kumar but he was not examined because he was won over by the petitioner. Non- examination of independent witness does not affect the veracity of the evidence of the Police officials. In State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 956 (S.C.). , independent witnesses were joined and examined by the prosecution. They resiled from their statements. They however, admitted their signatures on the documents. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that their evidence did not affect the merits of the case, when the other evidence produced by the prosecution was cogent, convincing and reliable to prove the case of the prosecution. To suspect the officials of Police in respect of acts done by them in the discharge of their public duties, shall run counter to the recognized principles of law that the presumption is that a person, including a Police official, acts honestly unless the contrary is proved. This Court sees no reason why the testimony of Buta Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-5) and Parminder Singh Head Constable (PW-6) should not be relied upon. Otherwise too, there is nothing on record to show that the Police had involved the petitioner in this case falsely due to any animosity. 10. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, this Court Criminal Revision No.492 of 2009 4 .. is of the considered opinion that the judgments of the Courts below are perfectly justified. So, this revision is dismissed. 11. Per records, Amarjit Kaur alias Amro – petitioner was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the revision. Her bail/surety bonds are cancelled. She be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.03.2011 som