Crl. Revision No.1355 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1355 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2011. Boota Singh ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Boota Singh having been convicted and sentenced by the Courts below, has filed the instant criminal revision petition. According to prosecution version, on 17.10.2007 complainant-Resham Singh and his brother Malkiat Singh came to their commission agent and took Rs.50000/- from him. At about 3:00 PM, the complainant and his brother were boarding a bus when the accused-petitioner Boota Singh snatched the money bag from the complainant and started running. He was chased by the complainant, his brother and some other persons. While running away, the accused fell down and suffered injury on the foot and consequently, he threw the money bag and ran away. However, Crl. Revision No.1355 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - police party headed by ASI Jagsir Singh reached there and caught the accused red handed. Charge under Section 382 I.P.C. read with Section 511 IPC was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined complainant Resham Singh PW-1, Ramesh Kumar commission agent PW-2 and ASI Jagsir Singh PW- 3. All of them broadly stated according to the prosecution version. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. broadly denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. No evidence led by him in his defence. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2009 convicted the accused under Section 382 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. In appeal preferred by the convict, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 20.05.2011 converted the conviction of the accused from that under Section 382 read with Section 511 IPC to that under Section 379 IPC and sentenced the accused for the said offence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Feeling Crl. Revision No.1355 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - aggrieved, the accused has preferred the instant criminal revision petition I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that guilt of the accused is not proved. The contention cannot be accepted. Prosecution case has been supported by all its witnesses. The accused was caught red handed. He was chased while he was running away with the money bag after snatching it from the complainant. However, while running away, the accused fell down and on fear of being caught, he threw away the money bag and started running away again, but he was caught by the police and the public. There is no reason to doubt the prosecution evidence. Prosecution witnesses had no reason to implicate the accused falsely or to depose against him falsely. Even the accused has not alleged any ground for false implication. His plea is of simple denial. Prosecution evidence has been found to be credible by both the Courts below. No illegality or perversity in the finding of the Courts below regarding guilt of the accused could be pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 IPC is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and emphatically prayed for reduction in sentence. However, I find no ground for accepting this prayer. Incidents of snatching of money from the innocent public persons are increasing day by day. Crl. Revision No.1355 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - Leniency shown in such matters acts as catalyst and encouragement for such culprits. This menace which is assuming alarming proportion should be curbed with iron hand. In fact the learned appellate Court has already shown leniency to the petitioner by reducing the sentence to imprisonment for six months only. The said sentence cannot be said to be excessive in any manner, keeping in view the nature of offence and the amount involved. Consequently, the said sentence does not warrant further reduction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 22.07.2011. A.kaundal