Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surendra @ Sonu @ Bholu vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 24 July, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 787 / 2017
Surendra @ Sonu @ Bholu S/o Shri Sultan B/c Jat, R/o Bhahawati,
PS Samal Khan, District Panipat, Haryana. (At Present Confined in
District Jail, Jhunjhunu).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Paliwal with Mr. Umesh Vatwani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 24/07/2017
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken for deciding the revision petition at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and sentence dated 06.04.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pilani (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.492/2016, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 392 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- has been imposed upon him. On non-payment of fine, the petitioner is required to undergo two months simple imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, whereby, the appeal preferred by the (2 of 5) [CRLR-787/2017] petitioner was dismissed.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 22.04.2016 an F.I.R. was lodged by Vishnu Bhagwan alleging therein that on 15.04.2016 at 7:30 PM when he was going in Swift Dzire bearing Registratin No.HR 35 L 6332, two persons asked for lift. It was alleged that after crossing Pilani, the persons robbed him of the vehicle. The vehicle was recovered from Bahal Thana, Haryana on 21.04.2016 in accidental condition.
4. The police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Petitioner was charged under Section 392 I.P.C. On behalf of the prosecution, statement of Vishnu Bhagwan PW-1, Balveer PW-2, Balwant Sing PW-3, Hoshiyar Singh PW-4, Surendra Singh PW-5, Suresh PW-6, Alka Vishnoi PW-7 & Balwan Singh PW-8 were recorded. Documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated.
5. After hearing the arguments, the Court below convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 392 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by which an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, District Pilani aggrieved by which the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
6. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. has been lodged after seven days of the incident. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. which raises doubts on the prosecution case. It is also contended that the statement of (3 of 5) [CRLR-787/2017] Vishnu Bhagwan does not inspire confidence. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that the vehicle was taken on hire by two persons, whereas in the F.I.R., he has mentioned that two persons took lift from him when he was going in the vehicle from Narnaul.
7. It is also contended that after recovery of the vehicle on 24.04.2016 at Bahal Thana, the present F.I.R. has been lodged to falsely implicate the petitioner.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. His contention is that the accused was identified by the complainant. It is also contended that the complainant informed the Police on the same day.
9. I have considered the contentions.
10 The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the complainant informed the Police on the same day is not supported by the statement of PW-8 Balwan Singh, who has stated that he received the information on 22.04.2016.
11. Complainant has not given any explanation about delay in lodging the F.I.R. for a period of one week. The owner of the vehicle has also not been produced as a witness to establish that the complainant informed him about the vehicle being hired. If a person is robbed, the first thing a prudent man would do is to approach the Police. However in the present case, the incident is stated to have taken place on 15.04.2016. F.I.R. was lodged on 22.04.2016.
12. The Court below has placed reliance on information given (4 of 5) [CRLR-787/2017] under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act of the recovery made by the Police in pursuance of the information as also the information given under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the place from where the vehicle was robbed by the accused.
13. It is pertinent to note that the fact which is discovered in consequences of information received from the person may be proved under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
14. In the present case in hand, the fact from where the complainant was robbed was known to the Police and thus there was no discovery in consequences of the information. Similarly, the car was recovered by the Police on 21.04.2016. Seeking information of the same on 04.05.2016, therefore, is of no consequence. The recovery of the vehicle and the pointing of the place where the incident took place has no consequence and could not have been made a basis for convicting the accused.
15. The Court below has further not appreciated the fact that delay in informing the Police for an offence of robbery creates doubt in the prosecution case.
16. There is a delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R. Owner of the vehicle has not deposed before the Court, hence, there was not enough material before the Court to have convicted the petitioner.
17. In view of the above, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside.
18. The revision petition is allowed.
19. The judgment and sentence passed against the petitioner by (5 of 5) [CRLR-787/2017] the Court below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Petitioner be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
20. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to his satisfaction of the trial Court in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. within two months.
21. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Arti/32