Sandeep Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 250 of 2011, State Vs. Sandeep Singh

Negi by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri-Garhwal (for short “the caseâ€). By the impugned judgment and order, while

acquitting the revisionist of the charge under Sections 457 and 379 IPC. Revisionist, has been convicted under sub-section 411 IPC and sentenced to

two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. This judgment and order dated 25.03.2013 was further challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 27

of 2013, Sandeep Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Tehri-Garhwal (for short “the appealâ€​). But, in

appeal on 27.05.2013, while upholding the conviction, the sentence was reduced to one year simple imprisonment, which is also impugned.

Facts are in very short compass. On 07/08.02.2011 certain computer parts were stolen from a Government Primary School Aleru (dholdhar) (for

short “the primary schoolâ€). A report of this was lodged on 09.02.2011 and a case was registered. On 28.02.2011, the stolen articles, according to

the prosecution, were recovered from the revisionist. After investigation, charge-sheet submitted and proceeding of the case was instituted.

On 02.05.2011, charge under Sections 379, 457 and 411 IPC were framed against the revisionist to, which he denied and claimed trial. In fact,

according to the prosecution, the primary school and the office of CRC Ram Gaon were situated in one and the same building. The report was lodged

by the Coordinator CRC, who is PW1 Bhim Lal Mehra. In evidence, prosecution examined seven witnesses, which includes PW1 Bhim Lal Mehra,

Coordinator CRC Ram Gaon and PW2 Smt. Usha Dobhal, Head Master of the primary school from where, the articles were stolen. Other

prosecution witnesses of recovery and Investigating Officer were also examined. On 12.03.2013, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he was falsely implicated. It is thereafter by the impugned judgments and order dated

25.03.2013, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC, as stated hereinabove. The order convicting the revisionist was

challenged in the appeal but, the conviction was upheld and sentence reduced to one year. Both these judgments are impugned.

Learned amicus curiae would argue that the list of articles stolen from the primary school was never given to the Investigating Officer because no

witness has stated about it. Therefore, the identification of articles at the time of recovery is doubtful; the table cloth, which was allegedly recognized

by the witnesses at the time of recovery, as stated in the recovery-memo is also not reliable because this fact has not been stated by any of the

witnesses in the evidence; according to PW4 Constable Vijay Singh, the articles were subsequently recovered from a house of a Jagat Singh Negi, but

his role has not been investigated. After raising these factual aspects learned amicus curiae would also argue that in this case recovery has not been

made under Section 27 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Actâ€​) and presumption under Section 114 of the Act cannot be drawn.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the revisionist; witnesses have

proved it; recovery-memo was prepared at the time of recovery. Therefore, it is argued that there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgments

and instant revision deserves to be dismissed.

This is a revision. The revisionist has been convicted by two courts below under Section 411 IPC. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years

with a fine, in appeal the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to one year.

The scope of revision is limited to the extent of examining, the correctness, legality or propriety of the judgement. The jurisdiction is not parallel to

that of appeal. Evidence cannot be appreciated like it is done in appeal. Of course, if any, material evidence is not considered or irrelevant material is

considered or any perversity has been shown to have occurred, to that extent evidence may be examined. In view of the settled position of law, this

matter will be considered.

This Court does not propose to reevaluate or re-appreciate the evidence. With regard to identification of articles questions have been raised that the

list was not provided to the Investigating Officer. PW1 Bhim Lal Mehra and PW2 Smt. Usha Dobhal are those persons, who had occasion to identify

the articles and they identified it, when it was recovered. PW2 Smt. Usha Dobhal has categorically stated that she had all the valid papers of those

computer parts. There appears to be no perversity in this finding that the articles stolen were in fact identified. If specifically witnesses did not say that

the list was given to the police, it does not make the findings perverse.

The articles were stolen from the primary school and they were recovered from the revisionist, for that purpose prosecution led evidence, which

has been found reliable by the courts below. This finding has weight of the evidence against it. The informant PW1 Bhim Lal Mehra PW2 Smt. Usha

Dobhal, the Principal of the primary school and other police personnel have categorically stated about these facts.

Insofar as role of the person Jagat Singh Negi, from whose house some of the stolen articles were recovered, is not material. The articles were

recovered from the revisionist and he led the police team from a place to a place where the remaining articles were recovered. This is also factual

aspect of the matter. If Investigating Officer did not investigate the role of Jagat Singh Negi, it does not make the impugned judgments and order, in

any manner illegal or bad in the eye of law.

An argument has been advanced with regard to the table-cloth, which was identified by the witnesses, when the revisionist was first spotted. This

fact is written in the recovery memo, but, if witnesses have not stated about it, it makes no difference. It is a minor omission.

Arguments have been raised with regard to the applicability of the Sections 27 and 114 of the Act. The Court requested learned amicus curiae to

tell, where these provisions have been invoked by the learned courts below. Section 27 of the Act is with regard to proving information received from

the accused. In the instant case, no information received from the accused as such been proved. What the prosecution has proved is that the stolen

articles were recovered from the revisionist. Insofar as applicability of Section 114 of the Act is concerned, the learned trial court in para no.9 of its

judgment categorically held that in the instant case, the presumption under Section 114 of the Act cannot be drawn, therefore, these arguments have

no force at all.

Having considered the submission under the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that, in fact, the impugned judgments

and order have been passed in accordance with law. There is no reason to make any interference in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.

A copy of the judgement be sent to the Court below alongwith the original record.