Rajinder Kumar alias Lovely vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present revision petition has been preferred by Rajinder Kumar alias Lovely. He along with one Sachin Kumar son of Darshan Kumar was put to trial in case FIR No. 14 dated 23.1.2005 registered at Police Station ''B'' Division, Amritsar under Sections 379/411 IPC. The trial Court found them guilty of offence u/s 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.

Both the convicts filed separate appeals. Learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar accepted the appeal filed by Sachin Kumar and acquitted him of the charge by giving benefit of doubt, whereas after upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the present petitioner dismissed the appeal.

In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement made by Paramjit Singh Walia, Advocate. It was stated in the FIR that on 21.1.2005 at about 9.00 P.M., complainant had gone to attend the marriage of his colleague Rajan Kataria at a place known as Prince International. He had gone in his maruti car bearing registration No. PCC 5252. Complainant was accompanied by Rajbir Singh son of Diwan Singh. Complainant had parked his car at a distance of 20 meters away from the venue and went inside. After taking his meals, when he returned back to go to his house, his car was not found. He searched for his car but could not trace out the same. Complainant searched for his car along with his friend also but their efforts proved futile. Therefore, he gave the complaint in the police station on 23.1.2005 at 9.00 P.M.

On 19.2.2005, the petitioner was arrested along with the car. A possession memo was prepared by ASI Lakhbir Singh. On 24.2.2005 accused Sachin Kumar was arrested and he suffered a disclosure statement, on the basis of which registration certificate and insurance cover of the maruti car were recovered from him.

Prosecution examined ASI Lakhbir Singh PW1, HC Kuldeep Singh PW2, HC Harbans Singh PW3 and complainant Paramjit Singh Walia as PW4.

ASI Lakhbir Singh PW1 deposed regarding arrest of the petitioner along with the car.

HC Kuldip Singh PW2 on 23.1.2005 had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. He further stated that on 19.2.2005 accused Rajinder Kumar was arrested and Sachin Kumar accused had made disclosure statement Ex.PC and got recovered the registration certificate and insurance certificate of the car vide recovery memo Ex.PE.

HC Harbans Singh PW3 stated that on 19.2.2005, he along with ASI Daljit Singh was checking the vehicles at 100 feet road, where the complainant also arrived and the accused was spotted coming from Sultanwind Road along with the maruti car.

Complainant Paramjit Singh Walia PW4 deposed regarding theft of the car and apprehension of the accused along with the car. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence.

Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him and stated that police had arrested him from his house and had wrongly shown his arrest from the naka. He stated that he was not able to drive the car.

Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that documents of the car i.e. registration certificate and insurance cover were recovered from Sachin Kumar. Petitioner was the prospective purchaser of the car and he had taken the car for a ride from Sachin Kumar, therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the real culprit has been acquitted by the lower Appellate Court.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not projected the aforesaid defence either before the trial Court or before the lower Appellate Court. No suggestion to this effect was given to any of the witnesses. For the first time, this version has been projected before this Court. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate and do re-analysis of the testimonies of the witnesses. No patent illegality or infirmity has been pointed out. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses. Therefore, the argument advasnced first time at this stage cannot be given due credence.

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case the petitioner was apprehended along with the car on 19.2.2005. Petitioner has already suffered a mental pain and agony of the protracted trial. Counsel has further urged that the petitioner is not habitual of receiving the stolen property. Petitioner was not involved in any other case before or after the registration of present case. Petitioner has already undergone three months and six days of actual sentence, out of one year sentence awarded to him. Counsel for the petitioner prays that taking these factors into consideration, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be suitably reduced.

I have considered the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. This Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded is suitably reduced. Consequently, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment is reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of.