Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sita Ram Son Of Mahabir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2013
CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M)
DECIDED ON:- 08.08.2013
Sita Ram son of Mahabir Singh, resident of Kampur, P.S.Baghpat (U.P)
...........Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
..............Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.BANGARH
Present: Mr. Munish Soni, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. H.S.Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent.
*****
S.P.BANGARH,J FIR Ex.PC/2 in this case, was lodged on the basis of complaint Ex.PC of Mukesh (PW3), wherein, it was stated that Sonu @ Khan was working as a driver with him (PW3) for the last three months. On the intervening night of 07/08.10.2008, Sonu driver was sent to Bahadurgarh and complainant (PW3) himself stayed at sand mine for filling sand in another vehicle. Sonu driver was told to stop at Khewra hotel. When complainant (PW3) reached at Khewra hotel, Sonu driver was not found present there. At about 04:00 a.m, driver came and informed the complainant that behind the hotel near factory gate, his tractor was snatched by two motorcyclists at about 01:30 a.m. After snatching the tractor, one of the snatchers took out a pistol towards the driver and later hit their vehicle. Driver was taken out from tractor. One of the snatchers took away tractor forcibly. Two boys also got Mamta 2013.08.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M) 2 down from the car standing behind and took the driver forcibly at gun point in the said car. After some time, Sonu driver was left on the kacha portion and the assailants ran away in their car. Driver reached hotel after taking lift in a trolla. However, he could not note down the numbers of the motorcycle and car of the assailants, who were stated to be young boys speaking hindi language. Driver could identify them. Albeit search, tractor could not be located.
On the basis of complaint Ex.PC, formal FIR Ex.PC/2 was recorded in police station Rai. Investigation was taken up in this case by PW7 ASI Mahinder Singh. Appellant was arrested and pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PF, tractor bearing registration no. HR-13D-1833 was recovered, that was seized vide memo Ex.PH.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Rai, instituted police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the appellant and his two accomplices committed offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the appellant and his accomplices and the case was committed to the learned Court of Session, that was entrusted to the trial Court (learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat), who, on receipt of Session case, framed charge under section 395 IPC readwih Section 397 IPC against the appellant and his accomplices and in addition, charge under Section 412 IPC was also framed against the appellant, herein, whereto, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, respondent/prosecution examined Suresh Kumar, Mamta 2013.08.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M) 3 Patwari, as PW1, Sonu, driver as PW2, Mukesh complainant as PW3, Nafe Singh as PW4, ASI Krishan Lal as PW5, SI Baljeet Singh as PW6, ASI Mahender Singh as PW7, SI Kanwal Singh as PW8, Inspector Sultan Singh as PW9, ASI Ajit Singh as PW10 and Jagdish Ram as PW11 and closed the evidence later.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, appellant and his accomplices were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C,wherein, they denied the allegations of prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. Appellant and his accomplices were called upon to enter in defence, but they closed the same without examining any witness in defence.
After hearing both the sides, as also, after perusing the evidence and documents on the record, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 acquitted Kulbir and Satpal @ Sonu, accomplices of the appellant, herein (Sita Ram), and convicted the latter for commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC only. Even, appellant was acquitted of other offences vide impugned judgment.
Vide impugned order of sentence, appellant, herein, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, besides, pay of fine of ` 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.
Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court has come up in his appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for his acquittal of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent have been heard and record of the learned trial Court perused with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, did not Mamta 2013.08.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M) 4 assail the impugned judgment holding the latter guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. Court is also of the considered view that the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is based on cogent, corroborating and reliable evidence of unimpeachable character consisting of PW1 to PW11 and therefore, there is no ground to interfere, therein.
Accordingly, impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the sentence of the latter may be reduced to already undergone.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, antecedents of the appellant and circumstances, wherein, the offence was committed, it is expedient to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. There is scope for reduction of sentence in this case, as the appellant is only guilty of possession of stolen tractor and has already undergone imprisonment for more than three years. It is expected that the detention of the appellant in jail would have brought tremendous mutation in his behaviour towards his fellowmen in the society. It is, therefore, expected that he will not indulge in this type of criminal activity in future.
Resultantly, the impugned order of sentence is modified and the sentence is reduced to three and half years from five years, that has been awarded to appellant by the learned trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. However, the period already undergone by the appellant in jail during investigation, trial and pendency of the appeal shall be set off from the substantive sentence that has now been reduced to three and half years.
Resultantly, except for this modification in the impugned order of Mamta 2013.08.16 12:34 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CRA NO.S-1351-SB OF 2012(O&M) 5 sentence, appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. CRM No.33004 of 2013
The criminal misc. application seeking suspension of sentence has become infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
08.08.2013 (S.P.BANGARH)
mamta JUDGE
Referred to the Reporter.
B/o
Reader
Mamta
2013.08.16 12:34
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh