Ram Vishal @ Ramu & Anr. v. State of Punjab

Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 8.1.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months each under Section 411 IPC. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 11.8.201 the complainant Vishrat Sharma (herein referred as, 'the complainant') had parked his Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration No.PB-07-9595, Model 1990 outside his house situated at Mohalla Ram Nagar, Hoshiarpur. At about 9.00 p.m. he had noticed that his scooter had been stolen. He tried to search the scooter but could not trace out the same. The documents of the scooter were also in its dicky. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, formal FIR was recorded. During investigation, the complainant got recorded the engine No.1042997 and chassis No.06-01-1006 of the stolen scooter. On 27.9.2001 the accused was apprehended and the aforesaid scooter was recovered. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused was charged under Section 411 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Amarjit Kaur (PW1), Vishrat Kumar (PW2), HC Balwinder Singh (PW3), ASI Naresh Kumar (PW4) and Balraj Kumar (PW5). Criminal Revision No. 224 of 2005 -2- *** When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel that the FIR is delayed one, it may be observed that the complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has categorically stated that after his scooter was stolen on 11.8.2001, he continued searching for the same and when he could not trace it out he lodged the complaint with the police. It is usually observed that in theft cases, the person first tries his all sources to trace out the stolen goods and then approaches the police only after exhausting all the available modes, therefore, minor delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. It has been next contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution has not proved the ownership of the complainant over the scooter in question. Having pondered over the aforesaid argument, I do not find myself in agreement with the same as the complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has deposed that he had purchased the scooter from one Balraj Kumar son of Swaran Kumar. His statement finds corroboration from the testimony of Balraj Kumar (PW5) who had categorically deposed that he had sold the aforesaid scooter to the complainant vide affidavit. He had also identified the scooter in thecourt. That apart, Amarjit Kaur (PW1) Clerk D.T.O. Hoshiarpur has categorically stated that the scooter was owned by one Balraj Kumar son of Swaran Kumar. Thus, no iota of doubt remain in my mind that the scooter was owned by the complainant. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at the revisional stage is very limited in nature. It has been observed by the Apex Court in case Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot Criminal Revision No. 224 of 2005 -3- *** embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. Further, on the issue, it held as under :- “Now, it is obvious that the question whether the appellant was guilty of negligence in driving the bus and the death of the deceased was caused on account of his negligent driving is a question of fact which depends, for its determination, on an appreciation of the evidence. Both the learned Magistrate trying the case at the original stage and the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing the appeal arrived, on an assessment of the evidence, at a concurrent finding of fact that the death of the deceased was caused by negligent driving of the bus by the appellant. The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct.” Similarly, while discussing the scope of revision, the Apex Court in case State of Kerala vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, AIR 1999 SC 981 held as under :- “Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be Criminal Revision No. 224 of 2005 -4- *** equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.” In any case, the re-appreciation of the evidence at the revisional stage is not permissible and the power of this Court to interfere at such a stage is very limited. It was so observed in case State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay Mangesh Poyarekar 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 555. Similarly, the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, AIR 2002 SC 2907 observed that in the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The records of the instant case transpire that the courts below have returned a finding of fact on proper appreciation of the evidence and the impugned judgment sans any perversity, irregularity or illegality. The sentence awarded also commensurates with the offence committed. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgments. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. November 12, 2010 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge