Judgment:
Crl.
Revision No.2516 of 2013 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Revision No.2516 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:
26. 8.2013.
Mangal Singh ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate for the petitioner....SABINA, J.
Petitioner had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'' for short) in FIR No.326 dated 14.5.2005, registered at Police Station City Sirsa.
The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 3.8.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 356 IPC.
Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal.
The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.7.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.5.2005, at about 5.00 P.M., petitioner snatched the ear-rings of the complainant.
Petitioner, however, managed to escape.
Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.
Revision No.2516 of 2013 (O&M) -2 - In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Kanta as PW-1 who fully supported the prosecution case.
She deposed that on 14.5.2005, at about 5.30 P.M., she had gone to the market with her nephew Vijay.
When they were present in front of Gaba Utensil Shop, then the petitioner, who was sitting on a bench, tried to snatch her ear-rings but failed to do so.
Then he again made a second attempt and pulled her ear-rings from her eaRs.Her nephew chased the petitioner but he (petitioner) managed to escape.
On the next day, when they were in the market, they saw the petitioner and informed Sub Inspector Sita Ram and, consequently, petitioner was apprehended.
On search of the petitioner, ear-rings belonging to her were recovered.
Vijay Kumar while appearing in the witness as PW-2 had fully corroborated the statement of PW-1.
In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 356 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 26, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.08.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh