Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh vs Parminder Singh & Anr on 25 September, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.33090 of 2013
and
Criminal Revision No.2242 of 2013 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:25.9.2014
Sukhjinder Singh
...Petitioner
v.
Parminder Singh and another
Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Cr. Misc. No.33090 of 2013:
For the reasons mentioned in the criminal miscellaneous application, the delay of four days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No.2242 of 2013:
Sukhjinder Singh-petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition against Parminder Singh and State of Punjab-respondents under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which respondent No.1 was acquitted for the offences under Sections 380, 411 HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.2242 of 2013 (O&M) [2] and 34 IPC and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Garhshankar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that as per the prosecution version, this case was registered on the statement of complainant-Sukhjinder Singh, who has stated that he is an NRI. On 11.1.2010, when he returned from Cananda to his house, he brought 4500 dollars, out of which 3400 were American dollars and 1100 were Canadian dollars. On 19.1.2010, he along with his neighbour Sameer Bedi alias Bittu had gone to the Sehmbi Furniture House, Garhshankar for preparing a wooden box, where accused Parminder Singh carpenter met them. On 20.1.2010, the petitioner went to Chandigarh and, therefore, he told Parminder Singh to come to his house on 21.1.2010 in the evening. In the morning of 20.1.2010, Gurmej Kaur mother of the petitioner was alone in the house and when the petitioner came back to his home in the evening at 5.00 p.m., he found that the house-hold articles were lying scattered there. At that time, his mother had gone to the house of neighbour. He tried his level best to trace out the purse of dollars, but to no effect. Then he called his mother from the house of the neighbour, who told him that Parminder Singh carpenter and his son had fitted the rack. Then, they went to the shop of carpenter Parminder Singh and asked about the dollars. He stated that though he had lifted certain articles in order to fit the rack, but the purse of dollars was not lying there. It is also in the FIR that the HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.2242 of 2013 (O&M) [3] respectable persons had tried to effect compromise between them, but to no effect.
On the presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused, framed charges for the offences under Sections 380, 411 and 34 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW-1 Sameer Bedi, who is neighbour of the complainant, PW-2 Sukhjinder Singh, PW-3 Nirmal Singh and PW-4 Pavinderjit Singh.
A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur shows that as per disclosure statement only 200 Canadian dollars were recovered from accused Parminder Singh on 25.2.2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 12.3.2010 acquitted the accused- respondent No.1 for the offences under Sections 380 and 411 IPC.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not contested the acquittal under Section 411 IPC. He only contested that there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused/respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 380 IPC and further recovery of 200 Canadian dollars from the accused/respondent No.1 connects him with the crime.
From the record, I find that as per the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, firstly, the occurrence in the present case took place on 20.1.2010, but the FIR in this case has been HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.2242 of 2013 (O&M) [4] registered on 22.2.2010 i.e. after more than one month and there is no cogent explanation to explain this long delay. The mere fact that the respectable persons tried to get compromised the matter cannot be held as a satisfactory explanation. The delay itself creates doubt in the prosecution version. Secondly, there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 380 IPC. Nobody had seen Parminder Singh-respondent No.1 committing the theft in the house of the complainant/petitioner. It is also in the FIR that when the complainant/petitioner came to the house, at that time, his mother was not present and the house-hold articles were lying scattered. There is every chance that some other person might have committed the theft. Further more, as per the complainant's version 3300 dollars had been stolen i.e. 2300 American dollars and 1000 Canadian dollars, but no recovery of other dollars had been made. Only 200 Canadian dollars have been recovered from the accused/respondent No.1. There is no evidence on the record to connect these 200 Canadian dollars with the stolen Canadian dollars. There is no document on record to show that which were the numbers of stolen Canadian dollars. There is also no document on record to show that the complainant was keeping those dollars as per law with him. There was no entry in the passport regarding these dollars and the complainant in the statement has stated that entry was not made as the amount was less than `10,000.
Further more, in the present case, the Investigating Officer has also not been examined, which further creates doubt in the HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.2242 of 2013 (O&M) [5] prosecution version. Otherwise also, if the dollars have been stolen by Parminder Singh and a talk of compromise was also going on, which means that Parminder Singh was knowing that allegations of theft are levelled against him, then why he would keep 200 Canadian dollars with him for such a long period. This version also looks unbelievable.
The findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge are based on reasoning and the evidence brought by the prosecution. In no way, it can be held that material evidence has not been discussed or some material evidence has been misread or the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is against the evidence or against the law. It is settled law that in the revision petition the Court is not to re- appreciate the evidence like the Court of appeal and only illegality has to be seen.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I find no illegality committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, finding no merit in the criminal revision petition, the same is dismissed. September 25, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh