IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 50 of 2008 Reserved on: 18.6.2008 Date of decision: 23.6.2008 Rewa Dass Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl.Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the judgement dated 16.2.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upholding the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.VI, Shimla, dated 5.10.2007, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, accused has been directed to go further imprisonment for fifteen days. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17th July, 2004 at about 6 a.m, a police party was on patrolling duty near State Bank of India, Lakkar Bazar. One Pick- up vehicle bearing No. HP63-0413 loaded with iron rods (Saria) came from Bharari side at a high speed. The police party gave a signal to stop the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle ignored the signal given by the police party and sped away towards the Lakkar Bazar Bus Stand. The police party, however, manage to intercept the vehicle near Oak Land hotel. There were five persons in the vehicle. Three of them fled away and two of them i.e. Kundan Lal driver of the vehicle and Rewa Dass were apprehended at the spot. They disclosed their own name and the names of other three persons. During interrogation, the present petitioner is alleged to have disclosed that he and other co-accused had stolen the iron rods from the lintel of one Manohar Singh of village Tood. Neither Kundan Lal nor Rewa Dass could produce any documents in respect of iron rods being carried in the Pick-up vehicle. FIR Ext.PW-8/B was registered on the basis of the Rukka Ext.PW-8/A. Investigation was conducted. The vehicle alongwith iron rods was taken into possession and the same was parked near the police post at Lakkar Bazar. Rewa Dass identified the spot from where the goods were stolen. Photographs were also taken. The case was filed against five persons. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial magistrate convicted accused Kundan Lal and Rewa Dass but acquitted the remaining accused. Rewa Dass and Kundan Lal filed appeals which were dismissed by the impugned order. Kundan Lal has not challenged the appellate order. Only Rewa Dass has filed the present petition. I have heard Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State. The main contention of Shri Bimal Gupta is that there are material contradictions in the statement of two alleged independent witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-9. He submits that both belong to village of complainant Manohar Singh PW-1 and therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon. It is also urged that in view of the statement of PW-5 that the Saria was unloaded on 21st July, the version of the police cannot be relied upon. There is no doubt that there are some contradictions in the statements of PW-2 and PW-9. According to PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar when he was coming back from Snowdown hospital and was near the police post at Lakkar Bazar then he saw the Mahindra Pick-up van loaded with iron rods. He was associated by the police and in his presence two apprehended persons disclosed their names to be Kundan Lal and Rewa Dass. He has proved his signatures on the various documents. The statement of PW-9 is otherwise similar. The only difference is that according to PW-9 he and Sanjeev Kumar were associated by the police near hotel Oak Land. Incident took place on 2004 and the statements of the parties were recorded after almost two years. It is obvious that when the two witnesses were associated some portion of the investigation may have taken place at the spot and some at the police post. The contradictions in two statements are not such major contradictions so as to make the prosecution case doubtful. Manohar Singh PW-1 has proved that iron rods were stolen from his lintel. He came to know about the theft only when the police reached the spot alongwith the present petitioner Rewa Dass. PW-4 Rakesh Kashyap has clearly stated that Rewa Dass had informed that he is in possession of some iron rods and can sell the same to him. The spot was identified at the instance of Rewa Dass. It is not one rod or two, which could have been planted by the police. There are nine bundles of iron rods costing almost Rs. 20,000/-, which were loaded in the Pick-up and recovered. No explanation was given by the accused as to how these iron rods were being carried by them in the pick-up. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty. I have gone through the entire record and evidence and find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the present petitioner was traveling in the vehicle being driven by Kundan Lal in which the iron rods were being carried. There is no explanation as to how the iron rods were being carried out by them. The prosecution has also proved that iron rods were sold by PW-10 to PW-1 Manohar Singh. The property in question, therefore, belong to Manohar Singh. The property was found removed from the lintel of Manohar Singh where he had stored it. Both the Courts below have drawn right conclusion from the evidence before them. There can be no other conclusion in the facts of the present case. Therefore, I find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly rejected. 23rd June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™