High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/40/2016disposed of

Sandeep Sood v. State Of Punjab Etc.

2023-02-09Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger13 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRA-AS-40-2016 Date of Decision: 09.02.2023 SANDEEP SOOD ...Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr.Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4 and 5.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, has been allowed and they have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2.

Brief facts of the case are that one FIR No.61 dated 20.03.1998 was registered under Sections 447, 457, 380, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Division No.6, Ludhiana, on the complaint of appellant-Sandeep Sood, who stated that he had taken on rent some part of property bearing No.432, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana, from one Gurdev Kaur wife of Karnail Singh @ Rs.2000/- per month and he started the firm namely, Maha Luxmi Tools Manufacturers and he had installed ten

new and three old machines therein. As per the complaint, Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, who are the real brother, met the complainant in the month of January and February and asked him to start a partnership business with them; however, he did not agree to it. As per the complainant, on 04.03.1998, he got status quo order from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, restraining Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, for not to interfere in his business. It was alleged that on 19.03.1998, at around 8:30 p.m., the complainant had gone to his house after locking his factory premises, and on 20.03.1998, at 9:00 a.m., when he went to his factory, he saw that the locks of the factory were missing and the locks were changed. When the complainant enquired for the same from Anil Sood and Sunil Sood, then they told him that the factory belongs to them. It is alleged that he came to know that the machines installed in his factory were stolen by Anil Sood, Sunil Sood, Balwinder Singh and Surinder Singh and the locks were broken by said persons. Accordingly, the afore-said FIR was registered.

Upon completion of the investigation, challan was presented in Court and on finding a prima facie case against the accused, they were charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B, 380, 457, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which, the accused pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 4.

The prosecution, in support of their case, examined the following witnesses :-

1. PW-1 Kashmira Singh

2. PW-2 Paramjit Singh

3. PW-3 Harbans Singh

4. PW-4 Sandeep Sood (complainant)

5. PW-5 ASI Avtar Singh

6. PW-6 Gurdev Kaur

7. PW-7 Krishan Kumar Sood

8. PW-8 Sukhwinder Singh

9. PW-9 Harmail Singh 5.

After the closure of evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against them was put to them and they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence by stating false implication in this case.

The accused examined the following witnesses :-

1. DW-1 Gurdeep Singh

2. DW-2 Anil Sood

3. DW-3 Sukhwinder Singh

4. DW-4 Mohinderpal

5. DW-5 Harminder Singh

6. DW-6 Surinder Singh 6.

Learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 23.12.2009,after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused only for offence under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and also vide separate order of sentence of even date i.e. 23.12.2009, sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and fined Rs.3,000/- each. It was further ordered that in default thereof, the convicts shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The trial Court, while convicting the accused, has held as under :- "39. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and the evidence of the accused being unreliable as discussed above, the ownership of the machines in favour of the complainant stands proved. It also stands proved that complainant had taken part of tenancy of plot no.432, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana

from Gurdev Kaur. However, prosecution has not examined any witness who has witnessed the theft being committed by the accused at the night time which was necessary to prove the ingredients of section 380/457/120-B IPC. The recovery of the machines has been effected on the basis of statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the accused which are very much relevant and admissible. The stands taken by the accused as discussed above does not sound to be reliable. Although, accused were charged sheeted under section 120B/380/457/506 of the IPC. However, as per section 221(2) and 222(2) Cr.P.C as the offence under section 411 IPC is punishable with lesser punishment, there is no need for amendment of charge.

From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and in view of the presumption as envisaged under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and accused having failed to initiating any action against the complainant or the police official if they have allegedly taken away their property, the ingredients of section 411 IPC read with section 34 IPC are fulfilled and accordingly all the ingredients of section 411 IPC read with 34 IPC stands proved against all the accused and as such all the accused namely Surinder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Anil Sood and Sunil Sood are convicted under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the IPC only. Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence."

Being aggrieved against the afore-said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2009, respondents No.2 to 5-convicts preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana; which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 01.06.2012 and respondents No.2 to 5, were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

The complainant has now filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned lower Court has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal filed by respondents No.2 to 5, by ignoring the evidence available on the record. It is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court was well reasoned and justified and accordingly, no interference was required to be made. Accordingly, it is prayed that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court may be set aside and that of the trial Court may be restored. 10.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 4 and 5 (respondent No.3 is stated to have expired, as has been recorded in order dated 12.12.2014, passed by this Court), has supported the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court by submitting that the learned trial Court had erred in convicting respondents No.2 to 5 under Section 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, without there being any sufficient evidence/material available on the record. It is submitted that the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower Appellate Court, is well reasoned, justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the present appeal has been made. 11.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-complainant and gone through the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and also the case file.

#$!

% & !' ( )

* +

+ % #%

( )

+ #$!

% & !" ( )

# -

+ +

%& "

$ (

$ ) $ * $ $ $ #

+ , $ #

- -

./0 1 $ 1 -

2+3

& , (

$ ( $

- -

$ #

4+ $ $

$ $

2+3

./ 0 1

- -

./0 1

4 $ 1 - -

67*** /

, $

, $ $

$ + $

./ 0 1

$ 4$ - -

# $ 3

./ 0 1

$ $

/ 3

- -

"3 8!

$ $

- -

9 $

/ 3

./% ./) ./ ./9

( ./% :

- 3

;;&/;9 + $ 2+3

-: -

< %;9 =

"3 ! +

"3 ! $

$ $

- -

$ 3

+ 2 $ 2+3

- -

2+3

./% + 2 2 +3

- -

, $ ./- -

/ 3

2+3

" "3 ! $

2 +3

4 "3 !

$ $

- -

+ 2

./%'

+ 2

./% :

- =

/ 3

; ' 3

./) = - $

"3 ./)

7%&*** /

2 2 +3

"3 .)

- -

2 2 +3

- -

./)

$ $

./)

"3 .) ,

%* ' 3

./9 -#:

- =

<&2 # $ & 2 2 +3

<; #4 $ +3

) 2 #! $ 2 +3

$, $

/ 3

# 4 ! - -

# $- -

$ $

$ $ $

2 2+3

) $ - -

+ + $ !

- -

$ '

$ #

./ - -

) 3

/ 3

$ ./

/ 3

- -

= # $$

3 =

# $

$ =

57 =

./ - -

$ %% .

$ (

, (

$ $

# $

$ !

( + $

> %

. ?@ ,

) $

?- -

@ ?@ ,

?@ ./ - -

) ?$ $ @ !

/ ?@ ,

$ '

% < ? @ ,

?@ , $ '

% < ? @

# $

+ ' 2 ,

+ & 3

$ (

#$%%$ &'% +

(

+ *

+ In this case, no exceptional circumstances have been brought forth so as to warrant interference in the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court. 4

! 5

!!'!

6 3

February 09, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No