Criminal Revision No.2425 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2425 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 5, 2011 Vikram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. Accused-Revisionist has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 26.3.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind as well as order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind whereby accused-revisionist has been held guilty for the offence under Section 379 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Brief facts of this case are that on 21.6.2006 Mehar Singh- Criminal Revision No.2425 of 2011 2 complainant filed an application before the police alleging that he was working as conductor in Haryana Roadways, Jind Depot and was performing the duties on the bus enroute from Jind to Haridwar and back. On 21.6.2006 after finishing his duty and depositing cash, he was returning on by rickshaw. At about 8.15 pm, when he reached in front of his house and was giving fare to the rickshaw-puller, the accused- petitioner came from behind and snached his bag and ran away. On his raising hue and cry, Ravinder, who was standing near his house chased the accused-petitioner and captured him. The accused-petitioner alongwith stolen property was handed over to the police. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused in the Court. Accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 379 IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 4 witnesses and thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 9.3.11. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.Pc was recorded wherein the petitioner denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties and after going through the records held the accused-petitioner guilty and convicted him under section 379 IPC. Not satisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Criminal Revision No.2425 of 2011 3 Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2011. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that prosecution story is not free from doubt and no independent witness has been joined from the locality. The complainant as well as PW-2-Ravinder Kumar are interested witnesses and as such no reliance can be placed upon their testimonies. He further argued that the case property was never produced before the Court during the trial and moreover, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingriendents of theft contained under section 378 IPC and as such the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel but the same does not hold any water. PW-1-Mehar Singh has categrocially deposed that after getting down from the rickshaw when he was giving fare to the rickshaw-puller, petitioner-accused came from behind and snatched away his bag which contained tickets, punch, vouchers etc. To prove the charge under section 379, the prosecution has to prove that the articles were taken out from the possession of the complainant without his consent. Snatching of the bag by the petitioner from the custody of the complainant itself shows that the petitioner has snatched the same with dishonest intention and without the consent of the complainant-PW1. The statement of PW-1 has fully been corroborated by the statement of PW-2 on all material points. The petitioner was chased and caught red handed at the spot and the Criminal Revision No.2425 of 2011 4 recovery was made from him there and then. There is nothing on record as to why the statements of these two witnesses be disbelieved particularly when they have no enmity against the petitioner. Both the Courts below have rightly held the petitioner is guilty for an offence under section 379 and as such no interference in the finding of both the Courts below is required. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error of law or jurisdictional or procedural error committed by the Court's below amounting to failure of justice, rather there is an ample evidence available on the record which goes to prove the guilt of the accused- petitioner. I am afraid that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, I can reappreciate the evidence. Revision deserves to be dismissed. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) October 5, 2011 Judge BB