Judgment:
CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-103-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 10, 2014 Prince Kumar @ Prince …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment dated 12.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34, IPC, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, was partly allowed, inasmuch as, while upholding the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court with regard to the conviction, the sentence was modified as under:- Under Section Sentence (R.I.) Fine In Default (R.I.) 382 r/w Section 34, IPC2years `500/- 2½ months 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts below have upheld the Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 2 conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34, IPC, therefore, he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner, however, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years besides payment of fine of `500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2½ months, was on higher side.
3. In response to the notice issued to the respondent State, Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has put in appearance.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the whole material available on record has been re-appraised.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.2009, ASI Gurmit Singh along with other police officials, was present at Lahori Gate in connection with patrolling, then he received a telephonic call from HC Jasbir Singh and HC Harjit Singh, who were patrolling on motorcycle, that one auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No.PB-02-AJ-9921, being driven by a clean shaven young man with another clean shaven young man on the rear seat, while proceeding towards Lahori Gate, had forcibly snatched a purse from a girl riding on the pillion of motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB-02-AJ-6404. Resultantly, police barricade was laid and the petitioner and his co-accused along Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 3 with auto-rickshaw were intercepted. The co-accused of the petitioner disclosed his name Avtar Singh while the petitioner disclosed his name as Prince Kumar @ Prince, son of Rakesh Kumar. Upon personal search of the petitioner, a brown colour lady-purse was recovered which was containing currency notes of `250/- and one card issued by Aggarwal Nursing Home. In the meantime, the complainant, Sajjan Singh and his daughter Manjit Kaur, reached at the spot and they identified the purse, auto- rickshaw and the persons travelling in the said auto-rickshaw.
6. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered. The auto-rickshaw, the purse containing the currency notes of `250/- and the card issued by Aggarwal Nursing Home were taken into police possession and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Charges for the offence punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34 and 411 read with Section 34, IPC, were framed against the petitioner and his co-accused, but they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the co-accused of the petitioner had expired, therefore, proceedings qua him were abated.
7. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined MHC Resham Singh as PW1; HC Sukhdev Singh as PW2; Manjit Kaur as PW3; Sajjan Singh as PW4; Sampuran Singh, Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 4 a Clerk from the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar, as PW5; Sukhwinder Singh as PW5 (wrongly numbered as PW5); and SI Gurmit Singh, Investigating Officer as PW6. Since the prosecution had failed to examine all the witnesses despite availing numerous opportunities, therefore, the learned Trial Court was constrained to close the prosecution evidence by order. Thereafter the statement of the petitioner in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded. He denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed innocence. No evidence in defence was led.
8. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34, IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and six months, besides payment of fine of `500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2½ months.
9. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, an appeal was presented before the learned Court of Session and the same was partly allowed, as has been observed in the earlier part of this judgment.
10. The depositions of Manjit Kaur (PW3) and Sajjan Kumar (PW4) would clearly establish that the petitioner along with his co-accused while riding an auto-rickshow, snatched the Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 5 purse of Manjit Kaur and thereafter he was apprehended and the purse was recovered from him. He as well as the purse was duly identified.
11. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the both the learned Courts below are well based so far as the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 382 read with Section 34, IPC, is concerned and, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel has rightly pointed out that for the last approximately more than nine years, the petitioner is facing the agony of the trial and appeal; he is neither required nor involved in any other case. He has already suffered incarceration for more than three months and that there is no person in the family to maintain the wife, children and mother.
12. Learned counsel for State has produced the affidavit of officiating Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, which is taken on record. Perusal of the affidavit reveals that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for three months and 8 days as on 8.2.2014. The petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case. He has a wife, children and old mother to maintain.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRR-103-2014 (O&M) 6 substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, but without there being any change in the order of fine and in-default clause above.
14. With the above modification, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) February 10, 2014 JUDGE Pkapoor Kapoor Prashant 2014.02.13 16:16 I attest to the accuracy of this order