IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revisions No.86, 87 & 88 of 2002 Date of decision : October 16, 2008 Cr.R No.86/2002 Jallo …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Cr.R No.87/2002 Amarjit alias Pallo …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Cr.R No.88/2002 Kehro aloas Parmeshwari …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, in all the Revision Petitions. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) These three revision petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, because they are directed against the same judgment of the trial Court as also the same judgment of the appellate Court. Revision petitioners have been convicted of offence, under Section 411, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months, each. 2. Prosecution version, as per evidence adduced during trial, may be summed up thus. On 4th February, 1993, seven ladies from the area of Nabha of Punjab State were seen deboarding a Maruti Van, at a place called Pir-Nigaha, near Una town, by PW-7 Vinod Kumar, near the site where his truck was parked. Those seven ladies went towards temple of Pir-nigaha. After a short while, shouts of a lady that her chain had been stolen were heard. PW-7 Vinod Kumar saw the seven ladies, referred to above, come running from temple side and escaping in the Van, from which they had earlier alighted. PW-7 Vinod Kumar went to Una and informed PW-1 Hari Kishan, President of Truck Operators’ Union, about the incident. Vinod Kumar then went towards Bus Stand Una in search of the ladies. They saw the Van parked near the petrol pump, but the ladies were not in the Van. After some time, PW-7 Vinod Kumar saw the seven ladies alighting from a private bus and then boarding the Van, which was parked near the petrol pump. The Van then started moving. Vinod Kumar tried to stop it. He clung to one of the back doors of the Van. The door gave way and he fell alongwith the door. Van proceeded at a very fast speed towards Tahliwal barrier. Superintendent of Police, Una, was informed by PW-1 Hari Kishan, telephonically, about the fleeing away of the ladies in the Van and the attempt made by Pw-7 to stop the Van. Superintendent of Police deputed PW-13 SI Kishan Chand to intercept the Van, which the latter intercepted at Tahliwal …3… barrier. Driver and one lady, whose name was lateron ascertained to be Jagiro, managed to escape. Seven ladies, including the present three revision petitioners, were overpowered and brought to Police Station, Una, alongwith the Van. At the Police Station, search of all the seven ladies, including the present three revision petitioners, was conducted by a lady police Constable, named Saroj Kumari (PW-4). During the course of search of three ladies (other than the present revision petitioners), named Rupo, Gurnamo and Piaro, two chains and a pendent with a chain, were recovered. From Rupo’s personal search, a golden chain with locket, weighing 25.2 grams, Ex. P-5, was recovered. From personal search of Gurnamo, a golden chain with pendent, weighing 14.95 grams, Ex. P-1, was recovered. From the search of person of Piaro, a golden chain, weighing 7.4 grams, Ex. P-4, was recovered. Chain Ex. P-5 was claimed by PW-10 Suresh Kumari to belong to her. She stated that it had been stolen from her person at Chintpurni, on 4th February, 1993, at 10 a.m., when she was paying obeisance to the goddess. PW-3 Asha Rani claimed chain with pendent, Ex. P-1, to belong to her and stated that it had been stolen on 4th February, 1993, when she was travelling by a mini bus from Una to Panjawar, in the company of her husband, sometime after 12.30 p.m. Chain Ex. P-4 was claimed by PW-11 Kushla to belong to her and she stated that it had been stolen when she was boarding a bus at Una for Shimla, around 10 or 10.30 a.m., on 4th February, 1993. Thus, all the three witnesses testified that theft of the aforesaid three chains had been …4… committed on 4th February, 1993, on which date the three revision petitioners alongwith four other ladies were spotted by PW-7 Vinod Kumar at Una. 3. Piaro and three other ladies were declared proclaimed offenders. Only the present revision petitioners were put on trial. Trial Court has convicted the revision petitioners, on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 Hari Kishan, PW-3 Asha Rani, PW-7 Vinod Kumar, PW-9 Saroj Kumari, PW-10 Suresh Kumari, PW-11 Kushla and PW-13 Kishan Chand, holding that they were the members of the gang of chain snatchers. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, nothing was recovered from any of the three revision petitioners, though the evidence, in the form of testimony of PW-13 SI Kishan Chand, suggests that they were in the company of the three proclaimed offender ladies, named Rupo, Gurnamo and Piaro, from whom the three chains were recovered. However, the testimony of PW-13 SI Kishan Chand about the apprehension of seven ladies at Tahliwal barrier is of doubtful nature. Admitted case of the prosecution is that there were only seven ladies in the Van, but PW-13 SI Kishan Chand says that seven ladies had been apprehended and brought by him to the Police Station and one lady, named Jagiro, managed to escape. Also, the evidence regarding recovery of chains from the abovenamed three proclaimed offender ladies is doubtful. Recovery was allegedly effected by PW-4 Saroj Kumari, in the presence of PW-7 Vinod Kumar. PW-7 Vinod Kumar, however, …5… does not corroborate the prosecution version about the recovery of chains from the proclaimed offender ladies. PW-3 Asha Rani, PW-10 Suresh Kumari and PW-11 Kushla, who claimed the three chains to belong to them and stated that the same had been stolen on 4th February, 1993, did not lodge any report with the police about the theft of their chains. The lady, whose chain was stolen at Pir-nigaha temple, per deposition of PW-7 Vinod Kumar, was not examined by the prosecution. Also, the police recovered only three chains, which were claimed by PW-3 Asha Rani, PW-10 Suresh Kumari and PW-11 Kushla. No other chain was recovered from the seven ladies, meaning thereby that no chain of any lady had been stolen at Pir-nigaha temple. This fact renders the testimony of PW-7 Vinod Kumar about his having seen the seven ladies and hearing a woman’s shout that her chain had been stolen at Pir Nigaha, quite doubtful. 6. Again, the revision petitioners and their lady accomplices (proclaimed offenders) could not have been present, both at Una and Chintpurni, around the same time. Distance between Chintpurni and Una is about 50 kms and it takes minimum one hour to cover this distance, even by one’s own car. PW-10 Suresh Kumari says that her chain was stolen around 10 a.m. on 4th February, 1993 at Chintpurni, when she was paying obeisance at the temple. She says that all the three revision petitioners and Piaro, one of the proclaimed offenders, who was present in the Court alongwith the revision petitioners, at the time when statement of PW-10 Suresh Kumari was recorded, were present at Chintpurni temple and standing …6… behind her when she was bowing to the goddess. At the same time, PW-11 Kushla says that her chain was stolen at 10 or 10.30 a.m. at Una Bus Stand. She stated that she did not know if any of the revision petitioners was there in the bus or at Bus Stand Una, when her chain was stolen. 7. The above discussed evidence of the prosecution does not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the three revision petitioners were involved in the theft of the chains of PW-3 Asha Rani, PW-10 Suresh Kumari and PW-11 Kushla. Not only this, the evidence does not establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that in fact the chains of the abovenamed three witness- ladies had been stolen on 4th February, 1993, as stated by them. It may be noticed that prosecution did not adduce any documentary evidence or any corroborative evidence showing that the three chains, in fact, belonged to the three ladies. Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed, judgments of the trial Magistrate and the appellate Court, convicting and sentencing the revision petitioners of offence, under Section 411, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are set aside and the revision petitioners are acquitted. Revision petitions stand disposed of. October 16, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J