IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.87 of 2009. Date of decision: 03.08.2010. Roop Chand … …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.Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 380 IPC where he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that FIR No.23 of 2001, dated 29.10.2001, under Section 380 IPC was registered with Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. alleging that on 29.10.2001 at around 8.30 P.M. the complainant was sleeping in his house when the accused, who had also been associated with the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 construction work of his house, came there and told the complainant that he is going to see his brother. Thereafter, the complainant is reported to have gone to sleep while his children were watching Television in the house of a neighbour. The petitioner is then alleged to have entered the house and stole one Attaché case containing currency notes of Rs.5,000/- as also jewelry etc. of the wife of the complainant. 3. The complainant then states in his evidence that he heard a noise in the adjoining room and when he woke up he saw that the accused was carrying Attaché case. He chased the accused, but he fled away. Report was lodged with the police where-after the petitioner was apprehended. 4. On the evidence on record, complainant Devi Saran who appeared as PW-1 and had supported the case as lodged by him. PW-2 Constable Tilak Raj stated that he was posted in Pangi in June, 2001 and a Naka was organized where the petitioner was apprehended with the stolen articles. PW-4 Suresh Kumar supports this evidence. These findings have been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions. There is no cogent, reliable and conclusive evidence of the prosecution on the record to link the petitioner with the theft. He submits that there is violation of the mandatory provisions of 3 Section 100 sub-section (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no independent witness was associated with the search. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that when these points are considered, not only the case of the prosecution become doubtful but it can be said that no case has been made out at all. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 8. The learned appellate Court, on going through the evidence, holds that there are some minor discrepancies in the statement of the complainant Devi Saran PW-1 but these are not of such a nature that go to the root of the case. The Court holds that this evidence was recorded after about three years after the occurrence of the incident and this witness cannot narrate every fact with meticulous detail about the occurrence as to what happened on the day of the incident. 9. This reasoning of the learned Court below cannot be doubted. On the question of independent witness, I do not find any evidence on the record that any independent witness was available and was not produced by the prosecution. There is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that the petitioner herein shall be released from custody on 31st October, 2010 in case 4 he is not required in any other offence. This petition is disposed of. Learned trial Court to ensure that this order is punctually obeyed. August 3, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.