Punjab-Haryana High Court
Teka Alias Tek Chand vs State Of Haryana on 25 January, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Rev. No.1189 of 2000 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No. 1189 of 2000
Date of Decision: 25 - 1 - 2010
Teka alias Tek Chand .....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been preferred by Teka alias Tek Chand. He was named as accused in case FIR No.304 dated 17.9.1999 registered at Police Station City Kaithal under Section 382 IPC.
A written complaint Ex.PB was made by Raj Kumar Bindlish. He stated that he is an Advocate. He was sitting in his chamber in the court when his neighbourer Jagdish son of Khan Chand arrived and told that thieves had entered his house and after committing theft of jewellery, they had left the spot but one thief along with knife and one purse had been apprehended. Complainant stated that immediately he along with Ramesh Gupta and Naresh Sharma, Advocates reached his house. His wife told that Crl. Rev. No.1189 of 2000 [2] she along with family members was watching the television. When she came in the courtyard, she spotted three thieves in the bed room and they were searching iron cup-boards by opening them with rods. They had gathered the jewellery on the double bed. Wife of the complainant raised noise, `thief - thief', upon which one of the thief took out a knife, due to which Smt.Asha stepped backward. Two thieves after gathering jewellery de-camped from the spot. On hearing the noise, people gathered and one thief was apprehended. The thief who was arrested at the spot, disclosed his name Ramesh son of Ram Bhagat and the names of his companions as Teka son of Jiwan and Surinder son of Mehar Singh. Subsequently, accused Teka and Surinder were apprehended on 26.9.1990 and 23.11.1990 respectively. They suffered disclosure statements, on basis of which recovery of jewellery articles was effected. Ramesh who was apprehended at the spot was declared proclaimed offender.
The trial Court convicted the petitioner along with Surinder @ Chhinder under Section 454 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, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The trial Court also convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Section 411 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Petitioner aggrieved against his conviction and sentence had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 454 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 411 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Crl. Rev. No.1189 of 2000 [3]
I have perused the record.
It is not disputed that the petitioner had suffered a disclosure statement and at his instance recovery of jewellery belonging to the complainant was effected. Two Courts below have relied upon the witnesses. There is no legal infirmity or irregularity pointed out by counsel for the petitioner. The Courts below have rightly held that testimony of PW1 Rajiv Gupta and PW3 Sarjiwan Kumar inspire confidence as they were independent witnesses.
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the present case occurrence had taken place on 17.9.1990. A period of two decades is going to elapse and the petitioner is in the corridors of the Courts and has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. He further submitted that petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family. Taking these facts into consideration, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner under Section 454 IPC is reduced from six months to four months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause is maintained. The conviction and sentence under Section 411 IPC is also maintained. The sentences under both the counts shall run concurrent.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 25, 2010. JUDGE RC