Aman Alias Kali Chappo v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 16.05.2024 Aman alias Kali Chappo ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Ms. Garima Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 5th of February, 2024 affirming the judgment of conviction/order of sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat dated 25.05.2023 whereby the petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC in case FIR No.541 dated 29.07.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, at Police Station City Panipat.
2.
As per the case of the prosecution, a complaint was registered by one Ajay to the effect that on 29th of July, 2022 he had gone to Geeta Colony, Panipat for making complaint for repair of air conditioner. On return his motor-cycle was found to be missing. Resultantly, the FIR No.541 dated 29.07.2022 ibid came into being.
3.
During investigation, the accused/petitioner was arrested on 16th of August, 2022 and he got recovered the stolen motor-cycle. Finding a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, he was charge-sheeted and was put to trial. Trial Court after analysing the evidence threadbare found the petitioner guilty and accordingly sentenced him as under : For commission of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, of the Convict Aman @ Kali Chappo is sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three(3) years.
4.
In appeal preferred by the petitioner, the conviction as well as sentence stand maintained.
5.
Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the judgments passed by the Courts below asserts that the same have been passed without appreciating the evidence on record. He further contends that both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the FIR was registered against unknown persons. The evidence of the prosecution rested upon statements of police officials/interested witnesses which was never corroborated by any independent witness and could not be relied upon beyond doubt. A false recovery was planted upon the accused/petitioner. 6.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
7.
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. is limited and as per settled law unless any error of law on the face of record is pointed out,
the same cannot be pressed seeking re-appreciation of evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
!
"
!"
# $%&
!"
!"
'
(
)
*
*
(
*
+
!"
# ,
(
*
## # $%
& & '
( '
## #%
&)' # *&+ *&+ # & +'$#& ,'&
)' &
&
&
- ## #%
+ -&
,'& )
( -
,
-+
+
*
+
!"
# (
$
.!/.
'+ - '
.!0 2
+ $## 3
.!0
'+ - '
."44 5 %
3 .!"6
/46
#'
- -3
.!"/
'+ - '
.4/7
# + % 8 , + ,'
+ ##
++ '
.!04
'+ - '
"
"
9
+
,'
:
8.
This Court finds no merit in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant and lateron on the basis of secret information, the accused was arrested and recovery was effect from him only. Both PW3 & PW5 deposed against the accused. Nothing could be extracted from their statements on the basis of which it could be said that they were deposing falsely or their statements could not be relied upon. No inconsistency could be pointed out by counsel for the petitioner. Non-joining of the independent witness was not a sine qua non for disbelieving the statements of PW3 and PW5 in toto. Same issue was discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563 wherein the Court held that non-examination of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and observed as under :
15. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521 : 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 925, relied on by the counsel for the respondent-State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be
distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. In the case of State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr., (2001) 1 SCC 652 : 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 56 it was held as under:
"It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. AS a presumption of law, the presumption would be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature". 9.
The complainant has proved on record pen-drive containing CCTV footage regarding the incident in which the accused has been seen committing theft of the motorcycle in question. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the charge for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC stands proved against the petitioner and there is no glaring error of law that can call for interference in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
10.
Resultantly, the present revision is dismissed. 16.05.2024 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No