RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 75 of 2002 Rameshwar .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal …………… Respondent With CRIMINAL REVISION No. 74 of 2002 Amar Singh @ Jhandu .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal …………… Respondent August 6, 2010 Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. These revisions, preferred by the revisionists under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), are directed against the judgments and orders dated 20.8.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2001, Rameshwar v. State of Uttaranchal and in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2001, Amar Singh @ Jhandu v. State of Uttaranchal, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the revisionists under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) was set aside. However, the conviction of each of the revisionists under Section 411 IPC has been upheld and sentence awarded to each of the revisionists to undergo R.I. for six months was also affirmed. 2. Since both these revisions involve common facts and arise out of the same offence, hence they are being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 4.2.1991 at 12.10 pm, Sadhu Ram lodged an FIR Ex. Ka-1 with PS Ranipur with the averments that in the night of 3/4.2.1991, his tractor Mahindra B275 was stolen from his house. At that time, he along with his family was sleeping inside the house and his father Kabul Singh was sleeping in the courtyard. When his father got up at 3 am for the natural call then he saw that the said tractor was not there. Then his father called him. He made the noise. Then his neighbourers Satyapal Singh, Brijpal Singh, Ashok Kumar etc. came there and tried to search his tractor but it could not be traced. The engine no. of his tractor is 14057 and he had not received the registration number of the said tractor till that time. On the basis of this FIR, chick FIR was prepared and necessary entry was made in the GD. Investigation of this case was entrusted to SI VK Sharma. During the course of investigation, the said tractor was recovered by the police on 8.2.1991 at 10.15 am in the presence of the complainant Sadhu Ram and Ashok from the possession of the revisionist Rameshwar who was arrested on the spot and the revisionist Amar Singh @ Jhandu who was driving the said tractor ran away from the place of recovery along with co-accused Janak. Recovery memo Ex. Ka-2 was prepared on the spot. Thereafter on 13.2.1991, the umbrella of the said tractor was also recovered from the revisionist Amar Singh @ Jhandu and recovery memo Ex. Ka-3 was prepared. The tractor was given in the supardgi of Kubul Singh, father of the complainant and the owner of the said tractor. During the course of investigation, the I.O. inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site 2 plan of place from where the theft of the tractor was committed and also the site plan of the place from where the tractor was recovered. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the chargesheet against the revisionists and the co-accused under Section 380 and 411 IPC. 4. On 20.5.1993, learned CJM, Haridwar framed the charges against the accused revisionists and the co- accused under Section 380 and 411 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to each of the accused revisionists and the co-accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 Sadhu Ram, the complainant; PW2 Vikram Singh and PW3 Constable Sheelchand Tyagi. 6. Thereafter, statements of the accused revisionists and the co-accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence were put to each of them in question form, who denied the allegations made against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not produce any documentary or oral evidence in defence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 10.7.2001 convicted and sentenced to the accused revisionists under Section 380 and 411 IPC. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.7.2001, the accused revisionists preferred separate appeals before the 3 Sessions Judge, Haridwar which was partly allowed vide judgments and orders dated 20.8.2002 as discussed above. Against the aforesaid judgments and orders dated 20.8.2002, the revisionists have preferred this revision. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire material available on the record. 9. PW1 Sadhu Ram in his statement has reiterated the version made in the FIR Ex. Ka-1. He has further stated that the said report was scribed by PW2 Vikram Singh on his dictation. He has further stated that on 8.2.1991, he along with Vikarm Singh (PW2), Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar were going along with the police party in search of the tractor and they reached at Nacheto and when they were going from Nacheto to Deoband, the said tractor was recovered from the possession of the revisionists. Rameshwer was arrested on the spot while the Amar Singh @ Jhandu ran away from the spot. Thereafter police prepared the fard Ex. Ka-2 on which he had also signed. He had also taken the said tractor in the trial court on the date of recording his statement and that tractor is Ex. 1. He has also identified the revisionists before the trial court. This witness was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel, but he could not be shaken. His statement is reliable, believable and inspire the confidence. 10. PW3 Constable Sheelchand Tyagi has also corroborated the statement of PW1 Sadhu Ram and has stated that the said tractor was recovered from the revisionists on 8.2.1991 at 10.15 am in his presence and a fard Ex. Ka-2 was prepared on the spot. He has further stated that on 13.2.1991, the umbrella of the said tractor 4 was recovered from the revisionist Amar Singh @ Jhandu and a fard Ex. Ka-3 was prepared on the spot. He had also signed on fard Ex. Ka-2 and Ka-3. This witness has also identified the tractor and the umbrella before the trial court. Tractor is Ex. 1 and the umbrella is Ex. 2. This witness was also cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but he could not be shaken. 11. From the perusal of the evidence produced by the prosecution, documentary as well as the oral i.e. the statements of PW1 Sadhu Ram, the complainant, PW2 Vikram Singh and PW3 Constable Sheelchand Tyagi, it reveals that the said Mahindra tractor was recovered by the police from the possession of the revisionists on 8.2.1991 at 10.15 am in the presence of the complainant and at that time revisionist Rameshwar was arrested on the spot by the police along with the said stolen tractor while the revisionist Amar Singh @ Jhandu who was driving the tractor ran away from the place of occurrence. Lateron on 13.2.1991, umbrella of the said tractor was recovered from him. 12. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, oral as well as documentary, as discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC as it has been proved that the said tractor Mahindra B275 which was stolen from the house of the complainant Sadhu Ram (PW1) in the night of 3/4.2.1991 was recovered from the accused respondents on 8.2.1991 at 10.15 am and at that time, Amar Singh @ Jhandu was driving the said tractor, who ran away from the spot while Rameshwar was arrested on the spot. Subsequently, umbrella of the said tractor was also recovered form Amar Singh @ Jhandu on 13.2.1991. Hence, the judgments and 5 orders dated 20.8.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar are correct and justified. 13. Learned Counsel for the revisionists argued that the sentence awarded by the trial court is on the higher side. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionists as the offence has been successfully proved against the revisionists beyond reasonable doubt and six months R.I. awarded under Section 411 IPC is not excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Haridwar is correct and justified on this count also and it warrants no interference by this Court. 14. For the reasons recorded above, both these revisions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. The judgments and orders dated 20.8.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2001, Rameshwar v. State of Uttaranchal and in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2001, Amar Singh @ Jhandu v. State of Uttaranchal are hereby upheld. The conviction of each of the revisionists under Section 411 IPC and sentence awarded to each of the revisionists to undergo R.I. for six months is also affirmed. Revisionists are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the aforesaid sentence. However, the period during which the revisionists were in jail during investigation, trial, appeal and during the pendency of these revisions shall be adjusted after verifying it from the records. 15. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith for its compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 6.8.2010 PRABODH 6