Criminal Revision No. 2241 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2241 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.8.2009 Avtar Singh ..... Petitioner vs The State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda on 19.8.2009 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner whereby he upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phul on 24.10.2008. The brief facts of the case as are available on record are that on 21.5.2001, SI Parladh Singh and other police officials were present at Bus Stand Village Jalal on patrol duty, where Swaran Singh, Secretary of Cooperative Society, Gurusar (for short, the Society), accompanied by Sukhdev Singh got recorded his statement. It is alleged that he is working as Secretary in the Society for the last 8/9 years. Today, he was going on his bicycle to deposit Rs. 1,69,700/- which were collected from the members of the Society and kept in a brown coloured bag, at about 12.00 noon, when he reached 400 square yards ahead from Gurusar, then two persons namely Ranjit Singh armed with .12 bore gun and Avtar Singh came there on a scooter. They stopped his bicycle. Ranjit Singh targeted his gun towards him and Avtar Singh threw chilli powder in his eyes and snatched the bag containing cash from him. Sukhdev Singh came at the spot and the complainant told the entire incident to him. The accused were arrested on the same day and Rs. 1,69,700/- was recovered from their possession. Scooter bearing No. PB-10J-1449 was also taken into possession. The gun along with five live cartridges were also recovered from the possession of accused Ranjit Singh. During the pendency of trial, accused Ranjit Singh expired. Challan was presented against the accused petitioner. He was charged for offence punishable under Sections 392, 394, 341 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 2241 of 2009 (2) After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused- petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence was put to him, which he denied and submitted that he is innocent. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as under:- Offence under Section Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in default of payment of fine 382 IPC RI for two years Rs. 1,000/- RI for two months 394 IPC RI for six months Rs. 1,000/- RI for two months 341 IPC RI for fifteen days Rs. 100/- RI for seven days Feeling dis-satisfied with the verdict of trial court, the petitioner file appeal which also met with the same fate. Now the petitioner has knocked the door of this court against his conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have gone in convicting the petitioner. He submitted that the prosecution has not examined the material witness ASI Jagroop Singh, who could prove the FIR, recovery memo and the site plan. This link evidence is missing and the courts below in the absence thereof wrongly convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that there are material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The chili powder was not chemically examined by the prosecution and no medical examination of the complainant was conducted. In the presence of such discrepancies, the order of conviction of the petitioner be set aside. Further submission was that neither the identification parade was conducted nor it has come in the evidence as to how the complainant knew the petitioner. In such circumstances, the version of the prosecution cannot be said to be trustworthy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has not examined the Investigating Officer of the case and link evidence is missing has no force. Reason being that the prosecution had recovered the amount from the petitioner and produced the same in the court. The testimony of the complainant who appeared as PW1, was fully corroborated by PW3 Sukhdev Singh who had reached at the place of occurrence when the complainant was rubbing his eyes. It is not the case of the petitioner that the police or the complainant were enimical towards him. The evidence adduced on record in the absence of the Investigating Officer cannot be faulted with. Non-examination of the chili powder in the Chemical Laboratory or the medical examination of the complainant is not fatal to the prosecution case. Even if something else is taken to have been poured or thrown into the eyes of the Criminal Revision No. 2241 of 2009 (3) complainant that will also hurt the eyes. It has also come in the evidence that when the accused had thrown the chili powder in the eyes of the complainant, thereafter he cleared his eyes and told the whole story to PW Sukhdev Singh. In the presence of such an evidence, there was no need for conducting the medical examination of the complainant. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no identification parade was conducted and that it has not come in the evidence as to how the complainant knew the petitioner earlier also has no force. It is only because the complainant knew the accused that his name was mentioned in the FIR and recovery was effected on the same very day from him. The recovery of such an huge amount i.e. Rs. 1,69,700/- cannot be said to be a planted one. In the presence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the courts below had done wrong in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Accordingly, findings of the court below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being without merit. 28.8.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge