IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004
Date of Decision: May 11,2009
Jeet Singh alias Gogi .................................................Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana .................................................. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Kundu, DAG, Haryana.
...
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner Jeet Singh has impugned the judgment dated
23.8.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, and the
judgment dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide
which he has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six
months.
The case against the petitioner and the other co-accused was
registered on the basis of statement made by PW3 Ravi Kumar,
complainant, which runs as follows:-
[ 2 ]
Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004
“That the complainant is a student of 10th class and resident of
Chandigarhia Mohalla, Sirsa. The children of their locality
were playing “Ram Leela”. They had engaged Shri Surjit
Singh resident of Neza Dela Kalan as a dancer in the Ram
Leela who was dropped at his house at village Nezadela Kalan
every morning. Today on 8.10.2001 he had gone to village
Nezadela Kalan to drop said Surjit on his motorcycle No. HR-
24-F/2108 make Hero Honda Splendour. At about 11.30 A.M.
He was returning to Sirsa on his motorcycle and when he
reached near Dhani Swaran Kumar two persons intercepted
him. One of them was with muffled face and the other was
wearing a cap. They stopped the complainant at pistol point..
They stopped him and snatched the motorcycle and went
towards Chattisgarh Patti, Sirsa. After some time one person
came on a scooter. He took a lift from him. He can identify the
robbers.”
On the basis of the aforementioned statement, case under
Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner
and other co-accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
Ravi Kumar, complainant, as PW3 who deposed that on 8.10.2001 while he
was coming back from village Nezadela Kalan and had reached near the
Dhani Swaran Kumar two boys came in front of him. One of them pointed a
pistol and the other slapped him. When he fell down the accused persons
took away his motorcycle. It is further averred that later on he came to know
that the accused were Jassi and Lovely. However, he does not recognise the
[ 3 ]
Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004
third accused.
Apart from the above, Jagdish Singh ASI PW4 deposed that
on 7.12.2001 during investigation the accused Jeet Singh and Buta Singh
made a disclosure statement that on 8.10.2001 they had snatched a
motorcycle bearing No. HR24-F/2108 and at that time accused Jeet Singh
was standing 10 yards away. The motorcycle was sold to one Raju who is
also an accused in this case. The pistol was allegedly with Lovely while the
knife was with Jasvinder. Other official witnesses were also examined and
on the basis of their statements all the accused were convicted under Section
392 read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated
9.2.2004 and the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court were
upheld.
Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to
challenge the findings of both the Courts below as far as the conviction of
the petitioner is concerned. However, as the petitioner has played no overt
act in snatching the motorcycle as he was standing 10 yards away from the
place of occurrence and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone
more than 10 months of actual imprisonment, therefore, a lenient view be
taken while sentencing the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that
neither the petitioner snatched the motorcycle nor caused any injury
whatsoever to the complainant.
The aforementioned factual position is not denied by the
counsel for the State.
In view of the above, I upheld the conviction of the petitioner
[ 4 ]
Crl. Rev. No. 504 of 2004
under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. However, on the question of
sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner, a perusal of the case file shows
that the petitioner has not played any active role in snatching the motorcycle
from Ravi. He has also not caused any injury to the complainant. Moreover,
the petitioner has also undergone more than 10 months of imprisonment as
is clear from the order dated 31.8.2004 vide which the sentence of the
petitioner was ordered to be suspended.
In view of the aforementioned facts, while upholding the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, I
reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
11.5.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE