Harikesh v. State of Haryana

RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI CORAM : Present:- C.R.Narwal, Advocate, for Mr.C.R.Narwal, Advocate, for , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Pillania, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana. Ramesh Chander Dimri J. (Oral) : Ramesh Chander Dimri

#1. Allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are Allegations against the petitioner and his co that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 and 29.05.2000, a truck that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 that on the intervening night of 28.05.2000 bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant bearing registration No.HR 20B/1580 belonging to the complainant Such Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Hansi. Such Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Han Rajender was stolen from the area of Police Station City Han theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under theft led to registration of FIR No.152 dated 31.05.2000 under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of Hansi. The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of The said truck was subsequently recovered from custody of the petitioner and his co-accused Joginder @ the petitioner and his co They were accused Joginder @ Jinda. They were FIR and were tried for offences under accordingly arrested in the said FIR and were tried for offences under FIR and were tried for offences under accordingly arrested in the CRR-1398-2009 -2- Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their trial led to their conviction under Section 411 of the said Code and they were accordingly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each under the said section.

#2. They filed appeals against the said conviction and sentences. During the pendency of the said appeals, co-accused Joginder @ Jinda died. The said fact is recorded in the judgment passed by the Learned Appellate Court. The proceedings qua him, therefore, were dropped on 10.01.2007. His appeal was accordingly consigned to records. Appeal filed by the petitioner was however dismissed by the said Court on 12.07.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed the present petition. It was admitted. His sentence was suspended by this Court on 15.12.2009.

#3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the petition in question.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has instructions from the petitioner to make a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction but leniency may be shown to him in the matter of imposition of sentence. He also says that the truck allegedly stolen, as per the prosecution case itself, was recovered during investigation with the bags of wheat loaded in the same and therefore so far as material loss is concerned, it is almost negligible in the matter in question. CRR-1398-2009 -3-

#5. Learned State Counsel has opposed his prayer for showing leniency in the matter of imposition of sentence but fairly concedes that the stolen truck, as is evident from the impugned judgments of conviction, with the bags of wheat loaded in it, was recovered during investigation and therefore, no material loss appears to have been caused to the complainant except for the loss caused during the theft period. He has also filed custody certificate in respect of the petitioner showing that the petitioner has already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days. Through the impugned judgments and order, the petitioner was awarded the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

#6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at Bar that the petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction on merits, the same are confirmed. However, a perusal of custody certificate filed today in the Court shows that there is no other criminal case lodged against the petitioner except the present one. He is stated to have already undergone a substantive sentence of 1 year 4 months and 21 days out of the total sentence of 3 years. A period of 26 years has elapsed the date of occurrence. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner in the case in CRR-1398-2009 -4- question is a sufficient sentence to deter him to repeat the offences of the like nature. The truck in question, as is borne out of the record, was recovered by the investigating agency during investigation. At the time of such recovery, it contained wheat bags loaded in the same. In view thereof, I find the present case to be a fit one for reducing sentence imposed on the petitioner to the period already undergone. I order accordingly.

#7. The present petition is partly allowed in the above-stated terms. All interim application/s, if any, stand disposed of. July 6th, 2026 sailesh (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether Reportable : No No