IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.81 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.06.2011 Ranjit Singh @ Kala … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, affirming the judgment and sentence imposed upon by the learned trial Court on the petitioner herein sentencing him to undergo:- Section Punishment 457 Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default further simple imprisonment for one month. 511 Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 default further simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Learned trial Court, on the evidence on record convicted the petitioner. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that on 18.11.2001 at around 8.00 P.M., accused-petitioner committed lurking house tress pass by breaking into the dwelling house of Ranjit Singh, situated in village Rappad with the intention to commit theft. He broken into the house by using ladder to gain entry/access and thereafter forced to open some boxes etc. The case was reported to the police which investigated the same. No evidence in defence was led. 3. The evidence of the prosecution consisted of PW-1 Sadhu Ram, Pradhan of the village, who stated that around 8.00 P.M. on that day one Rano Devi approached him and told him that somebody has placed a ladder near the window of the house of Ranjit Singh who was not present there. Thereafter, he alongwith some other persons went to the house of Ranjit Singh and when they went upstairs, opened doors of the room and when they went inside they found the petitioner sleeping under the bed in an intoxicate state. The boxes were lying open. PW-2 Roshan Lal also heard noises in the house of the complainant and he accompanied the other witnesses saw the accused lying/sleeping underneath the bed. These facts are corroborated by PW-3 Kusham Lata, PW-4 Sarita Devi and PW-7 Satpaul. The defence of the 3 petitioner was that he used to take drink with the owner of the house and on that day also, he and the owner had taken drinks whereafter he remained in the house. This defence was not established on the record. The petitioner was accordingly convicted. 4. The petitioner appealed and the learned appellate Court found no reason to differ with the conclusions of the evidence of the prosecution as brought on the record, conviction and sentence was affirmed. 5. In this revision learned Counsel has urged that there was no cogent evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence and the judgment is passed on conjectures and surmises. Learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on the record to urge that this is one case where there is no evidence to connect the petitioner and at most of what can be stated is that there was only trespass and no theft which has been committed as the petitioner was only found inside the house in a drunken state. In fact the argument is that even the prosecution witnesses found him totally in drunken condition and incapable of committing any act of theft etc. 6. I am not persuaded to hold that the evidence on record leads to the conclusion of innocence. There is no perversity either in the appreciation of evidence or conclusion arrived at and the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was found sleeping under the 4 bed/box in the room; he had broken open 3/4 boxes. It is also established that in order to do this act he used a ladder to gain access into the house. The intention obviously was to commit burglary. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. 7. On the aspect of the sentencing, it would be in the fitness of things that in case the sentence undergone by him is treated as the substantive sentence awarded to him under all the offences. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released from prison forthwith in case he is not required for any other offence. The Registry is directed to take the follow up action. June 21, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.