IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 11,2009 Jeet Singh alias Gogi .................................................Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana .................................................. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Kundu, DAG, Haryana. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner Jeet Singh has impugned the judgment dated 23.8.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, and the judgment dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which he has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The case against the petitioner and the other co-accused was registered on the basis of statement made by PW3 Ravi Kumar, complainant, which runs as follows:- [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004 “That the complainant is a student of 10th class and resident of Chandigarhia Mohalla, Sirsa. The children of their locality were playing “Ram Leela”. They had engaged Shri Surjit Singh resident of Neza Dela Kalan as a dancer in the Ram Leela who was dropped at his house at village Nezadela Kalan every morning. Today on 8.10.2001 he had gone to village Nezadela Kalan to drop said Surjit on his motorcycle No. HR- 24-F/2108 make Hero Honda Splendour. At about 11.30 A.M. He was returning to Sirsa on his motorcycle and when he reached near Dhani Swaran Kumar two persons intercepted him. One of them was with muffled face and the other was wearing a cap. They stopped the complainant at pistol point.. They stopped him and snatched the motorcycle and went towards Chattisgarh Patti, Sirsa. After some time one person came on a scooter. He took a lift from him. He can identify the robbers.” On the basis of the aforementioned statement, case under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Ravi Kumar, complainant, as PW3 who deposed that on 8.10.2001 while he was coming back from village Nezadela Kalan and had reached near the Dhani Swaran Kumar two boys came in front of him. One of them pointed a pistol and the other slapped him. When he fell down the accused persons took away his motorcycle. It is further averred that later on he came to know that the accused were Jassi and Lovely. However, he does not recognise the [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004 third accused. Apart from the above, Jagdish Singh ASI PW4 deposed that on 7.12.2001 during investigation the accused Jeet Singh and Buta Singh made a disclosure statement that on 8.10.2001 they had snatched a motorcycle bearing No. HR24-F/2108 and at that time accused Jeet Singh was standing 10 yards away. The motorcycle was sold to one Raju who is also an accused in this case. The pistol was allegedly with Lovely while the knife was with Jasvinder. Other official witnesses were also examined and on the basis of their statements all the accused were convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 9.2.2004 and the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court were upheld. Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to challenge the findings of both the Courts below as far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. However, as the petitioner has played no overt act in snatching the motorcycle as he was standing 10 yards away from the place of occurrence and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone more than 10 months of actual imprisonment, therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that neither the petitioner snatched the motorcycle nor caused any injury whatsoever to the complainant. The aforementioned factual position is not denied by the counsel for the State. In view of the above, I upheld the conviction of the petitioner [ 4 ] Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004 under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. However, on the question of sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner, a perusal of the case file shows that the petitioner has not played any active role in snatching the motorcycle from Ravi. He has also not caused any injury to the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner has also undergone more than 10 months of imprisonment as is clear from the order dated 31.8.2004 vide which the sentence of the petitioner was ordered to be suspended. In view of the aforementioned facts, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 11.5.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE