CRR No.1974 of 2003(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1974 of 2003(O&M) Decided on : September 21, 2010 Jasbir Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Amicus curiae - Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2000 convicted and sentenced Jasbir Singh (accused – petitioner) and one Narender Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, each, and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 15.9.2003 while dismissing their appeal, reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year, each. Accused Jasbir Singh has challenged the impugned judgment, while accused Narender Singh has not approached this Court. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 27.10.1994 when Sub- Inspector/Station House Officer Ismailabad along with other police officials while travelling in Government vehicle bearing Reg.No.HR07-0483 were going towards Dera Chhamu Kalan, then Ram Kumar – complainant, CRR No.1974 of 2003(O&M) [2] Patwari posted in village Ismailabad informed that he has been robbed of his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.HR-07-0915 (herein referred as `robbed motorcycle') at about 12.00 O'clock on that day near Sandeep Rice Mill by some unidentified persons. On his statement, the case was registered and investigated. During investigation, on 31.10.1994, the accused were apprehended along with the robbed motorcycle near village Tukar, Police Station Pehowa and they were arrested and robbed motor cycle was taken into possession. Thereafter, on their disclosure statement, a scooter bearing Reg.No.PB-11C-0203 was also got recovered. Accused Narender also got recovered a toy pistol from his house. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented against them. The accused were charged under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges, examined Assistant Sub Inspector Baldev Singh (PW1), Ram Kumar – complainant (PW2), Naresh Kumar (PW3), Naresh Kumar son of Prem Singh (PW4), Jagdish Chand (PW5), Constable Anil Kumar (PW6), Lakhwinder Singh (PW7), Inspector Nirpjit Singh (PW8) and Assistant Sub Inspector Badlu Ram (PW9). When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They further pleaded that they were coming in a bus from Pehowa to Ismailabad and the complainant was also sitting adjacent to them. They objected to the complainant when he started smoking. Consequently, a CRR No.1974 of 2003(O&M) [3] quarrel ensued, which resulted into registration of the present case. The trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed with some reduction in the sentence. Still dissatisfied, accused Jasbir Singh has ventured to challenge the said order before this Court. Shri Ram Bilas Gupta, amicus curiae has raised serious objection regarding the identification of the accused, but the same is without any merit as the complainant Ram Kumar (PW2) while appearing in the witness box identified the accused. Since, he had the opportunity to see him, therefore, question of mistaken identity does not arise. He has also identified him in the Court. The motor cycle in question was recovered from the custody of the accused. His testimony stands corroborated by Naresh Kumar (PW3). Both the complainant and Naresh Kumar have consistently stated that when they were proceeding towards Devigarh, then both the accused were seen coming on the robed motorcycle and on identification of the complainant, the accused were apprehended and on search, the motor cycle as robbed by them was recovered. Both the witnesses (PW2 and PW3) have withstood the test of cross-examination. Robbery was effected from Ram Kumar – complainant, therefore, Pritam Singh (owner of the motor cycle) had nothing to do with the same, as such, his non-examination is not fatal to the prosecution case. Naresh Kumar is not only the witness to the recovery of the motor cycle from the accused, but he has further stated that in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by accused Jasbir Singh, a scooter bearing Reg.No.PB-11C-0203 was also recovered. He has proved the disclosure statement Ex.PE, pursuant to which, a toy pistol was also recovered from the house of Narender Singh. Thus, on critical analysis of the aforesaid CRR No.1974 of 2003(O&M) [4] evidence, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. Since both the courts below have returned clear-cut findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused, therefore, re-appreciation of evidence, at this revisional stage, is not permissible and scope of interference is also very restricted at this stage. In case State of Orissa vs. Nakula Sahu and others, AIR 1979 SC 663, it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the Trial Court or the Sessions Judge. Once again, in 1999, in case State of Kerala vs. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999(1) RCR(Criminal) 808, the Apex Court held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Similar observations were made in case Jayakanth vs. State of Karnataka , 2009(5) RCR(Criminal) 896 (Karnataka), wherein, it was observed that unless the petitioner establishes that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is such illegality or perversity in the order of the courts below, the High Court cannot disturb the finding recorded by CRR No.1974 of 2003(O&M) [5] the lower court. No plausible defence has been set up by the accused to prove their innocence. Keeping in view the above, the findings of guilt of the petitioner concurrently recorded by both the courts below, are upheld. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the gravity of the offence as also the other circumstances of the case, the sentence has already been reduced by the Appellate Court and there is no further scope for interference on the quantum of sentence as well. Petition dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for compliance. Amicus curiae would be at liberty to claim remuneration from the competent authority, as per Rules. September 21, 2010 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE