IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 502 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 11,2009 Raj Singh @ Raju ......................................................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 Raj Singh @ Raju 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 411 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. 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. 502 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. 502 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. As Raj Singh was guilty of retaining in his possession the stolen motorcycle, he was convicted under Section 411 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. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is alleged to have purchased the motorcycle from the accused Jeet Singh. He also submits that the petitioner never knew that the motorcycle had been robbed from some person. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already undergone more than 5-1/2 months of actual imprisonment and further that the sentence of Jeet Singh has already been reduced to the one already undergone by him vide order passed today itself in Criminal Rev. No. 504 of 2004, therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. [ 4 ] Crl. Rev. No. 502 of 2004 The aforementioned facts are not denied by the counsel for the State. In view of the averments made by the counsel for the petitioner, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 IPC. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has purchased the robbed motorcycle and the fact that he has already undergone more than 5-1/2 months of actual imprisonment, therefore, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 11.5.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE