IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.2 of 2002 Subhash Chand & another ……. Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ..…. Respondent Dated : August 04, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate is present for the revisionist-Subhash Chand. None is present for revisionist- Jamshed, even in the revised call. So, I have gone through the records of the case on merits of the revision after hearing Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee whereby the criminal appeals no.20/1998, Subhash Chand Vs. State and no.22/1998, Jamshed Vs. State, pertaining to P.S. Laksar were dismissed. This dismissal of the said appeals resulted in the confirmation of the judgment delivered by trial court in criminal case no.362 of 1995, State Vs. Subhash and others. The said offence pertains to crime no.3/1988 pertaining to GRP Laksar (Haridwar). The said judgment was delivered by the Magistrate on 1.4.1998, wherein both the accused persons were convicted for the offence of Section 392 as well as 411 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. and Rs.1,000/- of fine for the offence of section 392 IPC while further one year R.I. for the offence of Section 411 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. After dismissal of their appeals, convicts 2 Subhash Chand and Jamshed have come in revision before this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist- Subash Chand and learned brief holder, it transpires that the incident is a train robbery. On 8.1.1988 when passenger train from Lucknow to Saharanpur was running these accused persons robbed Sri Masrur Ahmad along with his other family members Manjur Ahmed (father), Salim Ahmed (uncle), Smt. Shamim Akhtar (mother), Smt. Hazara Begum and Shahin Akhtar (aunts), Praveen Akhtar (sister) and younger brother Wasim Ahmed. Although the FIR was lodged against the four accused persons including the present revisionists but after investigation chargesheet was submitted only against the two and after trial in the lower court, they were convicted and sentenced, as above. Various items possessed by the victims including the jwellery were looted from them and the same were recovered by the police during the course of investigation. Accused/revisionists were also identified in the parade conducted in front of the Magistrate and the household articles including the jwellery was also identified by the victims in the parade. The grounds of revision on going through, it appears that all are stereo typed and there is no substantial irregularity or inconsistency has been indicated in either of the ground. For example in first ground it has been stated that the judgment and order of the court below are against the weight of evidence. In this regard, it can be observed that this revisional court has not to reappreciate the evidence third time, which has already been appreciated not only in the trial court but also in the first appellate court. Besides this it has not been stated as to in what manner the impugned order is against the weight of evidence. Secondly, it has been stated that the said judgment and order is based on conjectures and surmises but again nowhere mentioned that how and on what conjectures 3 and surmises the judgment is based. Third ground has been taken stating that prosecution could not establish the case beyond doubt. In this regard it can be said that only after proving the case beyond doubt the lower court as well as the appellate court has convicted them. Fourthly, it has been stated that revisionists are not named in FIR. In this regard, it can be held that not naming the revisionists in the FIR is rather a strong proof that the FIR was not lodged naming any person. It is only after investigation when the recovery was made from the possession of the revisionists then the police has named them in the chargesheet. Besides the above grounds, all other rest of the grounds are very fickle and do not carry any substance. No other question of law has been pointed out which affects the conclusion of trial as well as the appellate court adversely. In the above circumstances this revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is dismissed. Let the lower court be sent back for serving out the sentence as awarded by the court to the culprits. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 04.08.2011 Rajeev Dang