IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1520 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 07, 2009. Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder and others. ...... Petitioners . Versus. State of Punjab. ..... Respondent . CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners . AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner No. 1 Jaswinder Singh @ Sinde, petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh @ Fauji, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa, petitioner No. 3 Satnam Singh @ Santa, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam, initially convicted all the petitioners under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them all to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years (each) and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (each) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, vide judgment dated 25.09.2007. On an appeal preferred by the petitioners, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 26.05.2009 has sustained the conviction of petitioner No. 1 Jaswinder Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. Singh @ Sinder and petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh @ Fauji under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C., but had converted the conviction and sentence of petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa and petitiner No. 3 Satnam Singh @ Santa to Section 411 I.P.C. The sentence has not been changed and has ordered to remain same including fine. Hence, the present Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the identities of petitioners No. 1 and 4 have not been established as complainant Vasdev has initially stated at the time of registration of case that the persons, who had extorted an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from him were two in number and of wheatish complexion. He submits that Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder-petitioner No. 1 and Kabul Singh @ Fauji-petitioner No. 4 are not of wheatish complexion and even age, which has been given by the complainant Vasdev to the police of two persons who had extorted the money was different from actual age of both the accused. He, therefore, submits that the identities of the accused, who have been found guilty under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C., need to be acquitted and since accused No. 2 Hardeep Singh and accused No. 3 Satnam Singh were not involved in the said crime and have been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C., also deserve to be acquitted. He in any case submits that there is no evidence against petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa and petitioner No. 3 Satnam Singh @ Santa, who it is alleged to have shared booty of amount allegedly snatched by petitioners No. 1 and 4. Counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the statements, which have been brought on record, to make his submission with regard to his contention. He further submits that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 -2- Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. were arrested in F.I.R. No. 50 of 2004 dated 08.06.2004 for an offence punishable under Section 399/402 I.P.C. at Police Station Khanauri, and thereafter during investigation it is alleged that the disclosure statement was made by petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder Singh and Hardeep Singh @ Deepa respectively, which lead to the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1.75 lakh and Rs. 75,000/- respectively. On their further confession about their involvement in the present case, they have stated that they have given Rs. 10,000/- each to purchase buffaloes from Major Singh and the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was produced by Major Singh, which currency was identified by complainant Vasdev. Subsequently, petitioners No. 2 and 3 namely Satnam Singh @ Santa and Kabul Singh @ Fauji were arrested on 16.06.2004 and 18.06.2004 respectively. He submits that in F.I.R. No. 50 dated 08.06.2004 Police Station Khanauri, the petitioners stand acquitted and they have been involved in this case by police without any basis. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners deserve to be acquitted in the present case. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case as well as statements of the witnesses with able assistance of the counsel. The facts in brief are that on 17.05.2004 complainant Vasdev got recorded that he was working as a Muneem in the shop of Ram Sharan Dass Walaiti Ram, Commission Agents, Dirba. These commission agents own a sheller namely Durga Rice Mills, Dirba. On 17.05.2004 at about 12:45 p.m., he withdraw Rs. 6 lakhs from the account of Durga Rice Mill, Dirba, from State Bank of Patiala. He wrapped the said amount in a red cloth and put the money in a bag on his motorcycle and was going from the -3- Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. Bank to shop of Ram Sharan Dass Walaiti Ram, Commission Agents. When he reached in front of the said shop, then two young men on red motorcycle came from the back side and stopped their motorcycle in front of his motorcycle. The young man, who was on the pillion seat, cut-surd dismounted from the motorcycle and pointed a pistol towards the complainant Vasdev and snatched the bag containing cash from the complainant Vasdev and remounted the motorcycle and drove away towards Samura Road. The complainant raised hue and cry and tried to chase them, but the person sitting on the pillion seat, fired towards the complainant Vasdev and escaped from the scene. He further stated that the accused persons driving the motorcycle was aged about 30-32 years, wheatish complexion and the person who snatched the bag was about 25-26 years, wheatish complexion, slim, average height and speaking punjabi language. During the investigation of the case, one Balbir Kumar son of Ruldu Ram disclosed the names of the accused persons as Jaswinder Singh and Hardeep Singh on 05.06.2004. Petitioners Jaswinder Singh and Hardeep Singh were arrested in F.I.R. No. 50, dated 08.06.2004 under Section 399/402 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Khanauri. During interrogation on 09.06.2004, they suffered disclosure statements and accordingly Jaswinder Singh got recovered Rs. 1 lakh and Hardeep Singh got recovered Rs. 75 thousand. On 14.06.2004, these two petitioners were arrested in the present F.I.R. and on 15.06.2004, they confessed that they had given Rs. 10,000/- each for purchase of buffaloes to Major Singh and the said currency notes were identified by complainant-Vasdev and were taken into possession. -4- Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. On 16.06.2004, Satnam Singh @ Santa-petitioner No. 3 was arrested and one motorcycle No. P.B.11-U-1943 was recovered, who also suffered disclosure statement and got recovered Rs. 1.20 lakhs from heap of manure. On 18.06.2004 during a Naka, Kabul Singh @ Fauji-petitioner No. 4 was arrested. One country made pistol of 12 bore with live cartridges were recovered and a separate F.I.R. No. 69 of 18.06.2004 for recovery of pistol was registered against him under the Arms Act. He also suffered disclosure statement and got recovered Rs. 1.30 lakhs pursuant thereto. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and defence, the Trial Court convicted all the petitioners under Section 392 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them for imprisonment of three years (each) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (each) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellate court on appreciation of the evidence have again upheld the sentence but has convicted petitioners No. 1 and 4 under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and petitioners No. 2 and 3 under Section 411 I.P.C. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. The discrepancy, which has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioners with regard to his contention that the identities of petitioner No. 1 Jaswinder Singh and petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh having different complexion from the petitioners as has been given by complainant Vasdev in his statement before the police, the same are merely minor in nature, which cannot shake the case of the prosecution. Complainant-Vasdev, while appearing as a witness before the Trial Court, had directly pointed out towards petitioner No. 1 Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder and petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh @ Fauji, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the identities of -5- Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. the accused were in any manner in dispute. It is not the contention of counsel for the petitioners that there was any enmity between the complainant Vasdev, his employers and any other person with the accused. No evidence to that effect has come on record. No reason, therefore, can be found, which could even suggest false implication of petitioners No. 1 and 4 instead of real culprits. The recovery of amount by the police on their disclosure statements, which have been duly proved by the prosecution, leave no manner of doubt about the involvement of petitioners in the crime. Above all, one diary was found from the place of occurrence in which names of all four accused were there and further Balbir Kumar P.W.11 has clearly deposed that on 02.06.2004, he was sitting in tea stall, which is on Sangrur Patiala road and all four persons were sitting there at corner table. They were known to him earlier. They were talking amongst themselves that they had snatched an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from Dirba Mandi out of which Rs. 1.40 lakhs had come to the share of each one and they have spent the remaining amount and now they should commit some heavy dacoity of Rs. 20 to 30 lakhs, so that they can purchase some land with that amount. He has withstood the cross-examination and therefore, involvement of all four of them in sharing booty stands fully proved. The evidence led by the prosecution goes beyond doubt to prove the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below. The acquittal of the accused in F.I.R. No. 50, dated 08.06.2004 under Section 399/402 I.P.C. has no bearing on the present case as each case has to be dealt with on the basis of facts and evidence, which is led by the parties before the Trial Court. In the present case, the prosecution having succeeded in proving the commission of crime -6- Crl. Revision No. 1520 of 2009. by the accused, the judgments passed by the Courts below are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners further prayed for release of the petitioners on probation. Suffice to say that the offence, which has been committed by the petitioners, for which they have been convicted and sentenced, does not call for any lenient view to be taken by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 07, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes / No. -7-