Jag Parvesh vs State of Haryana

K.C. Puri, J.—By this common order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 883 SB of 2010 filed by Jag Parvesh and Criminal Appeal No. 792 SB of 2010 filed by Ravinder @ Ravi as both these appeals arose out of the same judgment and incident. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. 883 SB of 2010.

The trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.2.2010 and order dated 24.2.2010 convicted the accused-Appellants under Sections 328 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (in short � I.P.C.) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-under Section 328 IPC each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-under Section 411 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The law was set in motion on the complaint made by the complainant alleging therein that he used to do labour work at Gurgaon and he was informed about illness of his Bhabi and had been admitted in a Hospital at Alwar. Therefore, after arranging money on 13.2.2008 at about 9.00p.m. the complainant started journey to Rewari by train and at about 11.30p.m. train reached to the platform of Rewari and after stepping down he started to walk on the platform. He ate �SABJI -PURI� and thereafter his relative Vishram and Anil met him on the platform. At about 1.00 a.m., three unknown persons met them and asked where they have to go then Anil revealed that they have to go to Bandikui. Then three unknown persons told that train is late for two hours. The said three unknown persons started talking with them and enquired regarding their whereabouts etc. Complainant along with other persons also talked with the said three persons and after sometime train came at platform No. 6 and they boarded the train. The three accused persons also boarded the train and came in their coach and sat in the cabin. The eldest out of three accused stated to them that they are also going with complainant persons and one out of three took a packet of Namkeen and Petha Sweet and offered the complainant and his companion persons and after consuming the same, they became unconscious. It has been further alleged that all the three victims admitted in hospital and they regained consciousness in the hospital and came to know that Rs. 2100/-and one Nokia Mobile Phone, Model 1108 having Sim No. 9873451078 from complainant Budh Ram, Rs. 2000/-from Anil and Rs. 2500/-from Vishram were stolen by the accused persons. On the basis of these allegation, formal FIR was registered at GRP Bandikui without number because the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of GRP Rewari. After that FIR No. 37 of 2008 was registered at GRP Police Station, Rewari.

It has been further alleged that during the course of investigation, police got the IMEI number of mobile phone from complainant and get the details of the said mobile set. As per details of IMEI number of Mobile Phone police get clue and arrested the accused. Site plan was prepared and the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused were arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial.

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to them. Finding a prima facie case, the trial Court framed charge under Sections 328 and 411 IPC against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge examined Budh Ram (PW-1), Constable Murari Lal (PW-2), Anil (PW-3), Vishram (PW-4), EHC Rajender Singh (PW-5), SI Desh Raj (PW-6), SI Jagmal Singh (PW-7), SI Vikram Singh (PW-8), ASI Permanand (PW-9), Inspector Satpal Singh (PW-10), Pawan Kumar (PW-11), Dr. Mahesh Vashitha (PW-12) and closed its evidence.

The accused were examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, all the incriminating evidence was put to them, they denied the same and stated that the present case has been foisted upon them. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, convicted and sentenced them, as detailed above.

Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 23.2.2010 and order dated 24.2.2010, the Appellants have preferred the aforesaid appeals.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants have submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence has taken place on 13.2.2008. The FIR was registered only on 26.2.2008 but later on FIR in the concerned police station was recorded on 30.3.2008. So, the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained.

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused offered Petha and Namkeen (bhujia) to Budh Ram and Anil on 13.2.2008 which contained poisonous substance and they fell unconscious and regained consciousness after three days. So, in these circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR is fully explained.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants have further submitted that Budh Ram one of the victims, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has not identified the Appellants in the Court. The identification made by Anil for the first time in the Court is without any meaning.

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

Anil victim has fully supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars and have identified the accused. Budh Ram, although has supported the case of the prosecution but it seems that out of fear he has not identified the accused in the Court. The recovery of mobile phone, ration card and phone diary further corroborated the version of the prosecution from IMEI, the police reached at the conclusion that mobile phone which was taken from the spot belonging to the complainant was used by the Appellants.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has further submitted that the recovery of one ration card and phone diary and Rs. 600/-from Jag Parvesh accused is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 411 and 328 IPC. He has submitted that the Appellant Jag Parvesh would not have kept the ration card and phone memory as these are not useful articles for him.

I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.

It depends upon the mind of the person whether he wants to keep the ration card and phone memory with him or not. Mental estate of an accused cannot be judged by any one. The recovery of mobile phone from other co-accused clinches the issue. There was absolutely no reason for the victim to lodge false complaint against Appellants. The recovery of amount from Ravinder proved the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt.

Lastly, learned Counsel for the Appellants have submitted that the sentence awarded is harsh. However, I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The accused have offered Petha and Namkeen (bhujia) to the victims Budh Ram and Anil and looted them of their belongings. They became unconscious. The gravity of offence does not make out of a case for interference in the sentence awarded by the trial.

Consequently, both the appeals stand dismissed.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.