Inderjit alias Inder vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the courts below.

Both the petitioners were chargesheeted for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. According to the case of the prosecution, one Dalipa gave a complaint to the police on 27.12.1982 alleging that there was a theft in his house and silver articles and a cash of Rs. 1000/ was stolen from his house on the intervening night of 26/27.12.1982. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 147 dated 27.12.1982. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioners and in pursuance of their statements, the stolen property was recovered. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accusedpetitioners in the Court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana who took the case on file in Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 1984. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against both the accused under Section 411 I.P.C. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned Magistrate convicted both the accused for an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each. Aggrieved by the same, the accusedpetitioners preferred an appeal to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 27.9.1986. On a consideration of material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on the accusedpetitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the above revision petition.

The learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners argued that the statement of the accused leading to the recovery of case property cannot be accepted as the Investigating Officer who recorded their statements has not been examined in the case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, he argued that the conviction and sentences of the accusedpetitioners are liable to be set aside. The learned A.A.G. (Haryana) argued that the evidence of the P.W. 2 Ram Kumar is sufficient to sustain the conviction and there is no reason for Ram Kumar to depose falsely against the accused and the nonexamination of the Investigating Officer has not caused any prejudice to the accused.

The case was registered against the accusedpetitioners on 27.12.1982 on the basis of a complaint given by Dalipa with a view that there was a theft in his house and silver articles and a cash of Rs. 1000/ was stolen from his house. During the course of the investigation, both the accused have been arrested and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of P.W. 3 Ram Kumar and others. The said Ram Kumar was examined as P.W. 2. He deposed that both the accused gave confessional statements and in pursuance of their statements, stolen property was recovered from their possession. The stolen property was also identified by the complainant Dalip Singh who has been examined as P.W. 1. If nothing was recovered in the presence of P.W. 2 Ram Kumar, there is no occasion for deposing against the accused, if really the accused have not given any statement leading to the recovered property, there is no reason for Ram Kumar to depose against the accused. The evidence of Ram Kumar is consistent and can be relied upon. The nonexamination of the Investigating Officer did not cause any prejudice to the accused. I am, therefore, of the opinion that both the Courts below rightly concluded that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused on the basis of their statements leading to the recovery and convicted the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. I, therefore, do not find any ground warranting an interference by this Court for the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. The conviction is, therefore, confirmed.

The offence is said to have taken place on the intervening night of 26/27.12.1982 i.e., about more than 12 years ago. The accused had already undergone imprisonment for about one month including pretrial detention. It is also stated before me that the accused paid the amount of fine. Under these circumstances and in view of the long lapse of time, I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.

Subject to the modification in the sentence as state above, the revision petition is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.