Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1275
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Mangla Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 853 of 2004
Decided On : 05/16/2005
Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the Petitioner.
Mr. JPS Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The court upheld the concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence and the absence of illegality, error, or perversity in the lower courts' decision.
Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Conviction - The court dismissed the revision petition challenging the conviction of the accused for the offences of house-breaking and theft, as it found no illegality, error, or perversity in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the lower courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for the offences of house-breaking and theft based on a complaint lodged by the complainant, who reported the theft of various items from his factory. The trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate Court affirmed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality, error, or perversity in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the lower courts, and therefore dismissed the revision petition and the application for suspension of sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the involvement of the petitioner in the house-breaking and theft offences, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the petitioner's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the concurrent finding of fact by the lower courts, which appreciated the evidence and concluded the petitioner's involvement in the offences.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the application for suspension of sentence was also dismissed.
H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 22.09.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Appellate Court hereinafter") in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2004, by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the Judgment and order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 135/2004 whereby the trial Court convicted accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment for each of these offences with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts of the case are that on 211.2003, complainant Gurpreet Singh lodged as FIR with Police Station, Jawaharnagar, Sri Ganganagar, inter-alia, stating therein that on the preceding night, some unknown persons entered his "Layalpur Soap Factory" by house-breaking and committed theft of two bicycles, three bags of tea-leaf , one tape-recorder, ten bags of washing-soaps, three bags of toilet soaps, coconut and Aanwala oil containers and currency notes of Rs. 10,000/-. On this information, the investigation ensued and after conclusion thereof , the police filed challan against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments, the trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 09.08.2004, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. Aggrieved of the Judgment and order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned Judgment and order dated 22.09.2004. Hence, this revision petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the Judgment s and orders of the Courts below as also the record of the case.
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was lodged at 6:00
a.m. whereas as per the statement of complainant PW. 2 Gurpreet Singh, he reached the factory at about 7:30/8:00 a.m. His further contention is that the recovered articles could no be stolen by a single person. His further contention is that the prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan, there are contradictions in their statements and no independent eye-witness has been produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the impugned Judgment s and orders of the Courts below.
5. PW. 1 Gurukripal Singh has stated that on 211.2003, a theft was committed in his factory by breaking-house and he has given details of the items and currency notes stolen from the factory. He is a witness to the site map. Exhibit P-1, recovery of stolen articles from the house of petitioner vide Exhibit P-2 and other memos prepared by the police.
6. Complainant PW. 2 Gurpreet Singh has stated that on 211.2003, the petitioner entered his shop by breaking house and committed theft of the goods detailed-out in his statement. He has also proved the site inspection note and various recovery memos.
7. PW. 3 Ranveer Singh is the Police Constable, who has stated that on 112.2003, he, alongwith Kulwant Singh, ASI and Sanjeev Kumar obtained the requisition from the Court and arrested petitioner Mangla Ram from the Jail. He has proved the arrest memo Exhibit P-9.
8. PW. 4 Kulwant Singh is the investigating officer, who has given evidence regarding conducting of all formalities of investigation. He has also proved the information furnished by the petitioner and the recoveries made in pursuance thereof . His cross-examination could not shake his
